Solution to the trolley problem

I have a totally worthless philosophy degree. But it isn't the pursuit of philosophy that's worthless. When philosophy is done properly, it is perhaps the most important element of education. What is worthless is the writings of most philosophers. Ethics is a branch of philosophy that has some particularly terrible viewpoints. Ethics isn't too different from political philosophy: it consists mainly of psychopaths telling other people how they should act.

The trolley problem is an ethical question. Imagine that a trolley is traveling down some tracks. It is heading toward three people who have been tied to the tracks, and they will all be killed by the trolley. You could, however, pull the lever to switch the track. On the other track, only one person is tied to the track. Do you pull the lever?

If you decided to switch the tracks, congratulations. You are a utilitarian. You subscribe to the most disgusting ethical system in existence, and you are most likely a criminal psychopath. You are willing to murder someone. You see people as means to an end.

Why did Truman murder 200,000 Japanese civilians with nuclear bombs? "To save a million American lives."

The same reasoning is used by all criminal psychopath politicians when they commit murder. In utilitarianism, you can justify any action. Morality becomes totally meaningless. You could murder 10,000,000 people and claim that you were doing it in order to create a perfect, genetically pure society.

Almost all philosophers are ignorant of the true nature of politics and economics, and so their attempts to explain human nature are ridiculous. Crime and morality begin with respecting individual property rights. When you pull the lever to switch the track, you are aggressing against that one person's individual property (their body). You are actively choosing to murder that person. But what about if you do nothing?

What the trolley problem is supposedly about is the morality of inaction. But it's rather silly to consider inaction as equal to murder. People are murdered every day all over the world. Guess what? I did absolutely nothing to stop any of those murders. Am I guilty of allowing those murders to happen? No sane person would argue this point, and so we should instead look at instances in which I am aware that someone is about to be murdered. I know that a diabolical criminal has intentionally sent this trolley toward the three people on the track with the intent to murder them. Do I have an obligation to save them?

First, I have the right to self-defense above all else. I have no obligation to sacrifice my own life in order to save them. To argue that I do would be to argue that I am somehow enslaved to them. But anyway, the trolley problem is a false dilemma. In real life, you do not have to choose between letting three people die and killing one person. The normal reaction to this situation would be to either (1) stop the trolley or (2) untie the people on the tracks. If you could do so safely, almost everyone instinctively would, for a variety of reasons. I would, however, argue against the idea that it is morally necessary to do so.

It's impossible to say, "But what if the trolley cannot be stopped and there's not enough time to save them?" No matter what, I would try. I would analyze every aspect of the situation and look for a way to save them. But what I would not do is murder an innocent person in order to do it, like a crazed criminal psychopath would. You have the right to use defensive violence against an aggressor, but you cannot defend yourself by becoming the aggressor against an innocent third party (e.g., using them as a human shield).

I should add that the ideal solution would be to stop the trolley by pushing the criminal(s) onto the tracks. That is what I mean by defensive violence.

Loading...