The Runaway Trolley (MICHAEL J. SANDEL)

The Runaway Trolley (MICHAEL J. SANDEL)

What, in short, does moral reasoning consist in?

To see how moral reasoning can proceed, let’s turn to a fanciful hypothetical story much discussed by philosophers.

Consider first this philosopher’s hypothetical. Like all such tales, it involves a scenario stripped of many realistic complexities, so that we can focus on a limited number of philosophical issues.

The Runaway Trolley

Suppose you are the driver of a trolley car hurtling down the track at sixty miles an hour. Up ahead you see five workers standing on the track, tools in hand. You try to stop, but you can’t. The brakes don’t work. You feel desperate, because you know that if you crash into these five workers, they will all die. (Let’s assume you know that for sure.)

Suddenly, you notice a side track, off to the right. There is a worker on that track, too, but only one. You realize that you can turn the trolley car onto the side track, killing the one worker, but sparing the five.

What should you do? Most people would say, “Turn! Tragic though it is to kill one innocent person, it’s even worse to kill five.” Sacrificing one life in order to save five does seem the right thing to do.

Now consider another version of the trolley story. This time, you are not the driver but an onlooker, standing on a bridge overlooking the track. (This time, there is no side track.) Down the track comes a trolley, and at the end of the track are five workers. Once again, the brakes don’t work. The trolley is about to crash into the five workers. You feel helpless to avert this disaster—until you notice, standing next to you on the bridge, a very heavy man. You could push him off the bridge, onto the track, into the path of the oncoming trolley. He would die, but the five workers would be saved. (You consider jumping onto the track yourself, but realize you are too small to stop the trolley.)

Would pushing the heavy man onto the track be the right thing to do? Most people would say, “Of course not. It would be terribly wrong to push the man onto the track.”

Pushing someone off a bridge to a certain death does seem an awful thing to do, even if it saves five innocent lives. But this raises a moral puzzle: Why does the principle that seems right in the first case—sacrifice one life to save five—seem wrong in the second?

If, as our reaction to the first case suggests, numbers count—if it is better to save five lives than one—then why shouldn’t we apply this principle in the second case, and push? It does seem cruel to push a man to his death, even for a good cause. But is it any less cruel to kill a man by crashing into him with a trolley car?

Perhaps the reason it is wrong to push is that doing so uses the man on the bridge against his will. He didn’t choose to be involved, after all. He was just standing there.

But the same could be said of the person working on the side track. He didn’t choose to be involved, either. He was just doing his job, not volunteering to sacrifice his life in the event of a runaway trolley. It might be argued that railway workers willingly incur a risk that bystanders do not. But let’s assume that being willing to die in an emergency to save other people’s lives is not part of the job description, and that the worker has no more consented to give his life than the bystander on the bridge has consented to give his.

Maybe the moral difference lies not in the effect on the victims—both wind up dead—but in the intention of the person making the decision. As the driver of the trolley, you might defend your choice to divert the trolley by pointing out that you didn’t intend the death of the worker on the side track, foreseeable though it was; your purpose would still have been achieved if, by a great stroke of luck, the five workers were spared and the sixth also managed to survive.

But the same is true in the pushing case. The death of the man you push off the bridge is not essential to your purpose.

All he needs to do is block the trolley; if he can do so and somehow survive, you would be delighted.

Or perhaps, on reflection, the two cases should be governed by the same principle. Both involve a deliberate choice to take the life of one innocent person in order to prevent an even greater loss of life. Perhaps your reluctance to push the man off the bridge is mere squeamishness, a hesitation you should overcome. Pushing a man to his death with your bare hands does seem more cruel than turning the steering wheel of a trolley. But doing the right thing is not always easy.

We can test this idea by altering the story slightly. Suppose you, as the onlooker, could cause the large man standing next to you to fall onto the track without pushing him; imagine he is standing on a trap door that you could open by turning a steering wheel. No pushing, same result. Would that make it the right thing to do? Or is it still morally worse than for you, as the trolley driver, to turn onto the side track?

It is not easy to explain the moral difference between these cases—why turning the trolley seems right, but pushing the man off the bridge seems wrong. But notice the pressure we feel to reason our way to a convincing distinction between them—and if we cannot, to reconsider our judgment about the right thing to do in each case. We sometimes think of moral reasoning as a way of persuading other people. But it is also a way of sorting out our own moral convictions, of figuring out what we believe and why.

Some moral dilemmas arise from conflicting moral principles. For example, one principle that comes into play in the trolley story says we should save as many lives as possible, but another says it is wrong to kill an innocent person, even for a good cause. Confronted with a situation in which saving a number of lives depends on killing an innocent person, we face a moral quandary. We must try to figure out which principle has greater weight, or is more appropriate under the circumstances.

Few of us face choices as fateful as those that confronted the soldiers on the mountain or the witness to the runaway trolley. But wrestling with their dilemmas sheds light on the way moral argument can proceed, in our personal lives and in the public square.

Life in democratic societies is rife with disagreement about right and wrong, justice and injustice. Some people favor abortion rights, and others consider abortion to be murder. Some believe fairness requires taxing the rich to help the poor, while others believe it is unfair to tax away money people have earned through their own efforts. Some defend affirmative action in college admissions as a way of righting past wrongs, whereas others consider it an unfair form of reverse discrimination against people who deserve admission on their merits. Some people reject the torture of terror suspects as a moral abomination unworthy of a free society, while others defend it as a last resort to prevent a terrorist attack.

Feeling the force of that confusion, and the pressure to sort it out, is the impulse to philosophy.

 

 

 

 

Justice
Michael J. Sandel



Facebook

Instagram

Follow Me on Instagram
  • I never ask a man what his business is , for it never interests me . What I ask him about are his THOUGHTS and his DREAMS .

    lecturesbureau: "I never ask a man what his business is , for it never interests me .

What I ask him about are his THOUGHTS and his DREAMS ."
    47
    1
  • It's not the sentiments of men which make history BUT THEIR ACTIONS .

    lecturesbureau: "It's not the sentiments of men which make history
BUT THEIR ACTIONS ."
    240
    1
  • There is only one journey . Going inside yourself .

    lecturesbureau: "There is only one journey .
Going inside yourself ."
    354
    2
  • Love is composed of a single soul inhabiting two bodies .

    lecturesbureau: "Love is composed of a single soul
inhabiting two bodies ."
    275
    1
  • Little by little , one travels far .

    lecturesbureau: "Little by little ,
one travels far ."
    134
    0
  • What the caterpillar calls the end , the rest of the world calls a butterfly .

    lecturesbureau: "What the caterpillar calls the end ,
the rest of the world
calls a butterfly ."
    248
    0
  • Whatever you do , DO WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT !

    lecturesbureau: "Whatever you do ,

DO WITH ALL YOUR MIGHT !"
    254
    1
  • Love responsibility . Say : It is my duty , and mine alone , to save the Earth . If it is not saved , then I ALONE AM TO BLAME .

    lecturesbureau: "Love responsibility .
Say : It is my duty , and mine alone , to save the Earth .
If it is not saved , then I ALONE AM TO BLAME ."
    252
    0
  • The perfect Love is the one that gives everything and never expects anything in return .

    lecturesbureau: "The perfect Love is the one 
that gives everything
and never expects anything in return ."
    1808
    6
  • Liberty means Responsibility . That is why most men dread it .

    lecturesbureau: "Liberty means Responsibility .

That is why most men dread it ."
    283
    1