“The way things are does not determine the way they ought to be”
Michael J. Sandel
Do individuals define the plausibility of their actions from its outcome, or is morality defined and assumed from the mere thoughts of the actor? Such a consequentialist conundrum is most famously condensed in the Trolley Problem, a philosophical Sophie’s Choice first deliberated by Philipa Foot in 1967 and later adapted by Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1985. Recent courses made available online by the Faculty of Arts and Sciences at Harvard University have popularized moral psychology through the Socratic discourses of Michael Sandel, a proponent of Communitarianism. The modified thought experiment is as follows:
“There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the sidetrack. You have two options:
Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?”
Among multiple variations, another includes an obese person who, if thrown from a bridge onto the track, can successfully obstruct the train. The outcome in all such variations is the same, i.e. the life of one against five others. However, empirical evidence and a philosophical dialogue over this question reveal interesting insights.
One view is close to the widely debated upon Categorical Imperative. The idea involves the actor who isolates the principal action and weighs it against a universal maxim in a supposedly ideal setting. Here, the action of killing does not conform to the omnipresent imperative of goodwill, and hence, should be discarded from the decision set. The analogy at hand may not be a proper case to discuss Kantianism, but the tenets of Consequentialism provide some answers. Here, the final outcome of the decision made must be judged as good or bad. If for the “greater good” of five people surviving, one person must be sacrificed, it is morally sound to do so, also known as the Principle of Permissible Harm coined by Frances Kamm.
This is where one experiences a rather capitalist worldview of Utilitarianism, which places greater utility in saving five people over just one. In such a set of two actions which in principle involve killing, Deontological Ethics sharply contrast the aforementioned theories to suggest an analysis of the actions themselves instead of the outcome. Thus, the action of not pulling the lever would imply indirect, or unintended deaths for the observer. However, it should also mean an obligation to participate in a situation of moral wrongs already in place. For some, pulling a lever is a better option than pushing someone onto the track to be directly responsible.
Empirical evidence from virtual reality experiments conducted at Michigan State University in 2011 indicated that 90% of the respondents flipped the lever. Direct actions such as pushing a man off a bridge or the inclusion of relatives and romantic interests into the picture signalled activation of regions of the brain responsible for “emotion”, whereas more impersonal decisions such as deciding on the lever-activated regions of the brain associated with reasoning and calculated logic. This also highlights the existence of an inbuilt set of moral psychology as opposed to a purported “clean slate” at birth.
Social psychologists such as Jonathan Haidt present five such foundations of morality, the most applicable here is harm/care. He talks about neural programming that gives us certain attributes of care and compassion, especially for the weak and poor. A common view in Communitarianism, which explains individual behaviour as a subset of societal actions and connections, may also encapsulate the importance of religious identities into the equation, where God orders the observer to pull/not pull the lever. Such godly intervention and altruistic behavior are also witnessed in game theoretic-simulations of the Voluntary Contribution Mechanism, where respondents try to divide their wealth endowments to achieve equality and fairness, above of the predicted Nash Equilibrium. Haidt, also the author of a questionnaire that attempts to map such moral foundations onto the economic and political spectrum, found that liberal respondents score high on attitude towards fairness and harm/care. Conservatives, on the other hand, rank relatively low along with the same indicator.
The Trolley Problem serves as a crucial allegory to explain various issues in public policy, such as the limits of government rationality and its limits of competence, which forms another debate on liberalism. How far should the governor curtail certain freedoms to uphold other liberties and the rule of law? It also raises questions on the abrogation of minority rights under the purview of majoritarian politics, and how coalition politics fail to explain issues with stability. Automated vehicles face a dilemma to determine how far along should it be programmed to kill a bystander by following its course to save the passenger. Healthcare and medical rationing during national and global crises opt preferential treatment, where the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic in nations with inadequate resources is forcing professionals to treat otherwise healthy people likely to fully recover, or allowing home treatment which has an added demerit of an improper environment and greater probability of transmission. Here, socio-economic backgrounds almost always determine the denial and admission of patients. On a macro scale, the power to manipulate case records to radiate a sense of calm and peace is another facet of being in the position of a trolley operator.
Either it is self-interested utility optimization due to mass-produced individuality or empathetic reasoning of theological programming, the above two models explain the fine line between hoarding for profitability and lending a hand to collective interest in a world of increasing social entropy. However, paradoxes and engaging thoughts shall always lead to more constructive debate and a better platform for decision making never devoid of moral convictions.
References
Kamm, F. M. 1996. Morality, Mortality Vol. II: Rights, Duties, and Status. New York: Oxford University Press.
Cloud, Dec. 2011. Would You Kill One Person to Save Five? New Research on a Classic Debate. TIME
Haidt, 2008. The Moral Roots of Liberals and Conservatives. TED2008
Additional Readings
Justice with Michael Sandel, YouTube and course available on edX
Philippa Foot, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect" in Virtues and Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978) (originally appeared in the Oxford Review, Number 5, 1967.)
Shelly Kagan, The Limits of Morality, Oxford University Press, 1989
Feature Image Source- NY Times
By-
Kunal Panda
I can be found in museums and modern art galleries, or gazing into the Pune night sky, with his candour and telescopic observation for company.
Comments