Naked Philosophy: The Trolley of Choice and Our Values

Naked Philosophy is a series of articles by Amanda Yearling that will examine current problems/events under a philosophical lens.

Have you ever been stuck between a rock and hard place? A situation where you have two choices and both choices kinda suck? Then you have experienced the Trolley Problem. 

In the 1960s English philosopher Phillipa Foot pondered the thought experiment where both choices suck and you have to think about how you would choose. And it lives on to this day. There’s a fun board game my husband and I recently discovered called “Trial by Trolley.” Its premise is closely based on the philosophical thought experiment of the similar name. 

The idea is that you are operating a train or trolley where the brakes fail, and you come to a fork on the tracks. There are two choices, and the thought experiment is to pick a side. Like in the game, there are different things on each of the tracks to influence your choice. In the thought experiment there is one set of tracks with five workers, and another track with only one worker. The goal is to pick one, and to understand why you chose that track.

Utilitarianism would say picking the track with one worker is the more moral choice. Utilitarianism is the philosophical theory that the most moral choice is one that causes the least amount of pain for the most amount of people. So, in essence, inflicting the least amount of pain to the most people would mean traveling down the track with one worker. 

That doesn’t take into account our opinions about other people. Do our opinions about the people on the tracks change our decision? Obviously if your grandpa was the single worker on the track you would choose to avoid him, but what if your grandpa was an abusive alcoholic? Would being blood related make a difference? Or would his actions be the deciding factor? 

The fascinating thing about the trolley problem is it asks you to make a difficult choice when both choices suck, and forces you to consider how you make difficult choices when there is no obviously correct answer. 

Another thing to consider is if there was somebody truly horrible with the five workers? Does that change your choice? The other four workers you don’t know, but the fifth one is, let’s say, a serial killer. Do you kill the other four to take out someone who is objectively terrible? Or do you adhere to the moral principle that killing four innocent people outweighs any benefit of killing someone who brings the whole of society down?

Many have argued that the Trolley problem is unhelpful because of how unrealistic it is. Even if you ride trains all the time, it would be highly unlikely that you would ever oversee a train after the brakes fail under these exact circumstances. While that is true, there are situations where we are given terrible choices and we have to make a decision. This year many doctors and hospitals have had to make Trolley like decisions on who gets the resources and who doesn’t. How do doctors and hospitals make these decisions? 

A lot of families this experienced a “between a rock and a hard place” situation this past Fall, when they decided between the terrible choices they were forced to make for their children’s education. Do you risk it and send your kids to school knowing they may contract and pass on a highly infectious and deadly disease? Or do you try to teach at home while working 40-plus hours, and have your children deal with the emotional stress of being isolated from friends and teachers? Both options are terrible and for many of us parents, we had no choice but to choose. 

I’d argue that the Trolley Problem shows what you value. Do you value family despite abuse? Do you value innocent lives despite letting someone horrible survive? Do you put yourself and your loved ones’ health at risk by sending them to school or do you risk your financial and mental wellbeing keeping them at home? Where do your values lie and what process do you go through when you’re stuck between a rock and a hard place? 

Thought experiments can be fun, but the scary part is that for many of us this year, it hasn’t been a thought experiment. It has been a real living nightmare we hope will pass, but until it does, we still must choose. 

Amanda Yearling is a librarian and writer who has made Three Rivers her home.


Any views or opinions expressed in “Naked Philosophy” are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views or opinions of the Watershed Voice staff or its board of directors.