The Trolley Problem 

We all might have faced situations that put us in a position to make morally challenging decisions. In a situation, you find someone doing wrong at work, but informing your manager may cost them their job. What will you do in that situation? Will you inform your manager or leave it unnoticed? You have to leave your children in a hostel for their education. Your child is not OK with that decision. But there is no better option for their future. Will you make them suffer or take them back along with you? Each situation we discussed is about the decision we make. Everyone might have faced some moral dilemma like this at least once in their lifetime. Let’s learn about what is the psychology behind our decisions in these kinds of circumstances. 

The Trolley Problem 

The trolley problem is a thought experiment designed to challenge our moral decision-making. Philosopher Philippa Foot was the person to use the trolley dilemma in 1967. 

Situation:

You are in a situation to make a decision. You are on a railroad, seeing that the trolley is approaching five people. You can divert the trolley onto another track, but one person is standing on it. You have two options: either you pull the lever and change the track of the trolley that can save five lives but kill one person, or do nothing that might take away five people’s lives and save the other person. 

Dilemmas:

(Possible solutions that may come to your mind) 

Choice 1: You may think that pulling the lever can save five persons by leaving one person to die. i.e. you try to decrease the amount of loss. 

Choice 2: You can also think of doing nothing and save the single person. To save yourself from your conscience that the first situation may give. i.e. you avoid the situation of killing one individual. 

Principles behind these dilemmas: 

Choice 1: (Saving five people by sacrificing one life) This decision is based on the utilitarian principle, which focuses on maximising happiness and minimising suffering. It makes us think that saving five people by losing one is a better option. That leads to lower suffering. 

John Stuart miller, a philosopher, said, “Actions are good if they make people happy. They’re bad if they cause unhappiness.” 

Choice 2: (Refusing to sacrifice the innocent life, by not considering the consequences) This decision is based on the principle of deontology, which aims to not harm anyone. This says it is wrong to kill a single person, even to save five people. 

Deontologists say that there are no right or wrong actions and it is not based on the consequences, instead it focuses on aims, duties and obligations.

What happens when the trolley problem hits reality? 

Researchers thought of bringing the hypothetical situation and analyse the irony between the response for hypothetical answers and real-life response when they are made to confront that in reality. A study was done by researchers to test the thought experiment in reality. 

Situation: The experiment was conducted in a laboratory setting, where two volunteers were receiving electric shock while the third person is spared. And the participant is given choice either he can act and give shock to only one person (third person) or simply do nothing. 

Dilemma: Intentionally causing harm to another person or doing nothing and making the two people suffer.

Study: 

Phase 1: The researcher first asked the participants this as a hypothetical situation. The participants replied by predicting how they’ll react in the given situation. 

Phase 2: The participants were made to face a situation similar to the trolley problem in a laboratory setting. And then asked to make a decision, either they can redirect the shock to one person or simply observe the two people suffering. 

From phases 1 and 2, we may think the participants’ answers when confronted with the hypothetical situation and real-life scenario will be the same. But the study revealed results that differed from our expectations. 

Results: 

The result uncovered that there is a difference in response to both the case. Suppose a person said they’ll hurt the one person and spare the other two during the hypothetical case, made a decision not to hurt the one person when they dealt with reality. The researcher says moral decision-making is more complicated than we think. There is huge distance between what we will do and what we think we do in certain circumstance. 

Phase 3: After they witnessed the consequences of their decision, people received a shock in front of them. Next, the participants were presented with the same situation and asked to decide again. To find out “Would they make the same choice?” they made during phase 2. 

The question remains the same but the situation varies. Now there is a history, where some received the shock and some were spared. 

Results: The participants gave varied responses on what they did in phase 2.

Why did they change their mind? 

It is not because they are applying the philosophical principles of utilitarianism and deontology, but instead, their thoughts were emotional and complex. And participants gave justification for their change in decision as: 

• Suffering alone is worse than suffering with others– the single person is already unlucky and alone. At least the two people have each other. 
• Fairness across time matters– I changed my decision to balance it out. 
• Avoiding responsibility for causing pain– Let fate decide who was sitting where; it isn’t their choice. 

This brings us to the conclusion that moral dilemmas and decision making can vary with time, past and context. The decision we take may feel right in some moment and wrong in another context. A moral choice can sound right or wrong based on the emotional and social context. 

Read More: Loneliness: A Dual Threat to Mental and Physical Health

Conclusion 

We rarely face such moral dilemma in our life. In such case, we don’t weigh harm or benefit but also the responsibility, fairness and empathy. This study says that moral decisions are more complex than we think and this may involve the context, our past experiences, feelings, and relationships. What feels right in theory may seem different in real life. Being wise is navigating uncertainty- not clinging to absolute rules.