# The Trolley Problem (from the image) ## Setup - A runaway trolley will kill five people on the current track. - Pulling a lever diverts it to a side track where one person will be killed. - Question: What should you do, and does the value of the lives involved change the choice? ## Main Ethical Frameworks ### Utilitarianism (minimize total harm) - Rule: Choose the action that leads to the greatest overall good (or least harm). - Application: Pull the lever to reduce deaths from five to one. ### Deontology (duties/constraints) - Rule: Some actions (e.g., intentionally killing) are prohibited regardless of outcomes. - Application: Do not intervene; killing one as a means to save five violates a duty not to kill. ### Doctrine of Double Effect - Rule: It can be permissible to cause a foreseen but unintended harm to achieve a good end, if the good outweighs the harm and the harm isn’t the means. - Application: Pulling the lever can be seen as permitting the one’s death as a side effect rather than as a means, making intervention permissible. ### Action vs. Omission - Rule: Harms caused by action may be judged more blameworthy than harms by inaction. - Application: Some argue doing nothing (letting five die) is less culpable than acting to kill one. ## Do “values” of lives matter? - Equal moral worth principle: In the absence of special obligations, each person’s life has equal prima facie value. - Special obligations: If one person is your child or someone you’ve promised to protect, duties may tilt the decision. - Illicit valuation: Judging worth by status, ability, or social role risks unjust discrimination. ## Practical Guidance - If all else is equal and you accept outcome-focused ethics or double effect: pull the lever. - If you hold strong constraints against intentional killing: do not pull. - Under moral uncertainty: a common approach is to minimize expected moral wrongdoing; many conclude pulling is permissible and often recommended. ## Conclusion - Ethically defensible choice: Pull the lever to save five, assuming equal moral worth and no special obligations. - The “value” of lives should not change the choice except in narrowly defined, ethically justified cases (e.g., special duties), not based on subjective or discriminatory valuations.