The problem of the trolley

FRIST PART - INTRODUCTION AND SHOW OPENER Alejandra Lamas: Welcome back, ethical explorers, to another gripping episode of "Ethics Café: Daily Brew"! Today, we delve into the depths of morality, shining a spotlight on a famous and thought-provoking topic that has sparked debates across the globe: 'The Problem of the Trolley.' This intriguing experiment, born in the intellectual realms of Britain, takes us on a journey where the tracks of ethics intersect with the wheels of moral dilemmas. I'm Alejandra Lamas, your guide on this captivating exploration into the world of ethics. So, grab your cup of coffee and join me at "Ethics Café: Daily Brew"! - where we serve up thought-provoking stories that will stir up your thoughts. [END OF FIRST PART] [INTRO MUSIC] SECOND PART - "THE PROBLEM OF THE TROLLEY" Alejandra Lamas: Imagine this scenario: You're a tram driver, confronted with a gut-wrenching decision. Do you let the tram stay on its course, causing the deaths of five people, or do you steer it onto a sidetrack, sacrificing one life? What would you choose? Quite a dilemma, isn't it? This is the essence of the trolley problem, a moral puzzle that was first published in Britain by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. It didn't just stop there; it sparked what's now humorously referred to as 'Trolleyology' – an entire industry exploring different versions of the problem. Fast forward to 1985, the American philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson took things a step further. She puts you in the scene as a bystander with a switch, introducing new ethical dimensions to the dilemma. The original Trolley Problem looked at the morality of saving lives versus sacrificing one for the greater good. Thomson's version removes professional responsibility, leaving the bystander with a crucial choice: intervene and divert the tram or do nothing. This less-weighted version has us thinking about the moral implications of not acting versus taking action. Stick around as we unravel this moral mystery in today's exploration of the Trolley Problem. [END OF SECOND PART] THIRD PART - ETHICAL THEORIES RELATED Alejandra Lamas: So there are a lot of ethical theories that are both in favor and against Ms. Jones, the person who decides to switch the trolley and save the lives of these 5 people over the life of one man. In today's podcast, we are going to analyze some of these theories. 1. Utilitarianism / Kantian deontology Alejandra Lamas: For utilitarians, understanding the outcome of our actions is important, and prioritizing the greatest good for the most people is crucial. However, a truly ethical choice must also consider the bigger picture. This means weaving in the principles of Kantian deontology, which emphasizes the inherent value of moral rules and respect for individual rights. Imagine a situation like the one with Dr. Mapes (In the problem of the trolley, they use Dr. Mapes's example as a comparison to Ms. Jones's actions). Dr. Mapes killed one person by removing some of his organs to save the lives of 5 people, each of whom needed an organ. A utilitarian perspective might reluctantly accept sacrificing one life to save many, but a Kantian deontologist would argue that such an action, no matter how beneficial the outcome, violates our fundamental duty to treat all humans with dignity. Our legal Constitution becomes clear here - by establishing a set of moral guidelines, we create a framework to avoid the pitfalls of solely outcome-based decision making, safeguarding us from situations where good intentions might lead to unethical choices. So, the most well-rounded ethical decisions are those that incorporate both the potential consequences, championed by utilitarianism, and the unwavering respect for moral principles and individual rights, as championed by Kantian deontology. 2. The Principle of Double Effect Alejandra Lamas: The Principle of Double Effect helps us judge if Ms. Jones actions are morally right. According to this theory If Ms. Jones only sees that redirecting the trolley might unintentionally harm one person while saving others, her actions align with the principle. However, if she purposely wants to harm that one person to save others, it might not align with the principle. So, it's about whether Ms. Jones is trying to do a good thing and just happens to cause some unintended harm, or if she's intentionally causing harm for a perceived greater good. The principle helps us think about the morality of her decision in this challenging situation. it's essential to explore the emotional and psychological dimensions involved in decision-making. Individuals faced with such moral dilemmas often experience a range of emotions, including guilt, anguish, and conflict. The emotional impact of making choices that result in harm, even if unintended, can significantly influence the ethical evaluation of actions. The Principle of Double Effect, while focusing on the intent and consequences, also prompts an examination of the emotional and psychological toll on the decision-maker. How individuals cope with the moral weight of their decisions, especially when harm is involved, adds another layer to the ethical analysis. This emotional aspect is crucial for understanding the human experience within ethical frameworks. Psychologically, individuals may grapple with the concept of moral luck – the idea that the outcome of their actions, even if unintentional harm occurs, affects the moral assessment of those actions. Exploring these psychological dimensions alongside the Principle of Double Effect enriches our understanding of how individuals navigate complex moral dilemmas, shedding light on the intricate interplay between rational ethical principles and the emotional realities of decision-making in morally challenging situations. 3. Determinism / Freedom Alejandra Lamas: Determinism argues that our actions are like trains on a pre-defined track, propelled by a chain of events set in motion by our genes, upbringing, environment, and past experiences. In Ms. Jones' case, a determinist might say her decision to switch the tracks, or not to, was predetermined by her life experiences. • Perhaps her upbringing instilled a strong sense of valuing human life, influencing her to intervene and minimize casualties. • Maybe past experiences with accidents or violence shaped her risk tolerance, leading her to make a quick decision based on ingrained instincts. • Even her genes might play a role if they predispose her towards certain decision-making processes under pressure. Freedom, on the other hand, suggests that we have the ability to make conscious choices based on our own will and reason. We are not simply passengers on a predetermined journey, but rather the conductors navigating the train of our lives. • In Ms. Jones' situation, a proponent of freedom might argue that she had the power to assess the situation in those critical moments. • She could have weighed the options (save five lives, sacrifice one) and made a conscious decision based on her own moral compass. • Her freedom to choose might have been influenced by her values, but ultimately, the decision was hers to make. This debate about freedom and determinism adds another layer of complexity to the Trolley Problem. • If Ms. Jones' actions were predetermined, then perhaps the concepts of blame or praise become irrelevant. She was simply a product of her circumstances, acting out a script already written. • If she had the freedom to choose, then the weight of her decision becomes much heavier. She becomes responsible for the consequences, judged based on the ethical frameworks we apply. 4. Virtu Ethics In the case of Ms. Jones, applying Virtue Ethics involves evaluating her actions based on the development of her moral character and the virtues she exhibits. Virtue Ethics considers whether Ms. Jones demonstrates qualities such as courage, empathy, and integrity. If Ms. Jones shows courage by facing a difficult situation, empathy by considering the well being of those affected, and responsibility by taking ownership of her choices, Virtu ethics will view her actions positively. On the other hand, Virtu ethics will view if her decisions lack these virtues, an it might be critical of her moral character. Unlike some other ethical theories that focus on rules or consequences, Virtue ethics is more concerned with the ethical development of the individual. It encourages individuals to cultivate virtues over time, contributing to their overall moral excellence. In Ms. Jones case, Virtue ethics prompts an examination of the virtues expressed in her actions and how they contribute to her moral character. In other words, let's put on the virtue glasses and look at Ms. Jones. It's not just about what she does, but the virtues she shows, like courage, empathy, and responsibility. Virtue ethics tell us to focus on these qualities over time, not just rules or consequences. Does Miss Jones have the courage to face a tough situation? Is she thinking about others well being? Is she taking responsibility for her choices? These virtues could shape her ethical identity in this messy situation. So there you have it, ethical explorers. In our brief exploration, we touch on just a few ethical theories, but the landscape of ethical perspectives is vast and fascinating, waiting to be further explored. [END OF THIRD PART] CONCLUSION [OUTRO MUSIC] Alejandra Lamas: As we bring our exploration of the Trolley Problem to a close, it's crucial to recognize that this thought experiment extends beyond mere intellectual exercise; it serves as a reflective mirror, revealing the diverse array of ethical perspectives that exist among us. Each individual harbors their unique opinions and moral judgments when faced with the intricacies of the trolley dilemma. Beyond the seemingly simple scenario of tracks and switches, the Trolley Problem delves into the intricate web of values and principles that collectively form our ethical compass. It forces us to confront the multifaceted nature of our ethical considerations and challenges us to reconcile conflicting beliefs. In essence, this philosophical exercise is a journey into the complexities of our moral landscape. As we part ways, I am Alejandra Lamas, signing off from "Ethics Café: Daily Brew." I encourage you to continue contemplating and exploring the nuances of ethical dilemmas. Remember, the journey into ethics is as intricate and diverse as the very human experience it seeks to understand. Until our next meeting, keep contemplating, keep exploring, and always remember – the journey into ethics is as complex and diverse as the human experience itself. [END OF SCRIPT]