if you don’t leave under a rock and can red, you could have come across the trolley problem. this is a thought experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person. Many people would say they would save the many people and imperil the one person. But there’s a problem with this view which I came across recently and I am not sure why it hasn’t been raised previously to challenge utilitarian ethics. the problem, for example, with the trolley problem is that the onlooker has no relationship with either those in the train or the one person being sacrificed. what would be the outcome, say, if the one person is this onlooker’s only child and the trolley is occupied by none of his relatives? Or one of the passengers in the trolley is a boss who recently fired the onlooker making him destitute and the one person is his squeeze? Will he be concerned with the outcome that creates the greatest good for the greatest number? Or will he save his one squeeze?
The challenge here, to restate it, is that our relationships affect or impact on our ethical choices and without considering its implications, some of our ethical theories may tell only half a truth and they need to be reconsidered.
What do you guys think?
Random thoughts 
There’s a need to rethink the utilitarian perspective. Human nature will obviously prioritize and discriminate based on how “connected” one is to the object/subject in question. Our experiences and interactions inform a lot of our decisions
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you make a good point
LikeLiked by 1 person
You do make a good point.
Personally, I have never taken the trolley problem seriously. It seems too artificial. It attempts to come up with an objective conclusion. But there is always a subjective aspect of morality issues. And utilitarian values have an unavoidable subjective component.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I think this is the weakness most thought experiments face. They are so bare bones to include nuance
LikeLiked by 1 person
The aspect of relationship and connectedness as affecting our ethical decisions is valid. However, humanly speaking; the person who is to save the four and leave the one does so under emotional, and psychological improper dispositions. This improper disposition sometimes renders little time to negotiate between saving his only son or letting that rude employer who fired him from work recently die on behalf of the others.
I really do not consider the relations between the saver and the victims would impact his decisions. This is because he decides for the demise and life of each spontaneously and suddenly without considering to know who are those. Just to say, under improper mental dispositions. But saving them by the virtue of their being humans. However, I do admit that such relationships can impact sometimes. But this view would render the subjectivity of Utilitarian ethics.
Thanks for bringing this out! It’s a point of concern though.
Simon Lodai
LikeLiked by 3 people
Hello Simon,
You raise rather interesting aspect. I think such decisions are made in split second moments that room for deliberation almost doesn’t exist.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hello Makagutu,
Indeed, Such moments provide no room for mental negotiation. Very true!
LikeLike
One would never know until faced with the situation. It always irritated me when this question was asked.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Too true
LikeLike
I think this is why there is room for nuance when considering ethical issues.
Our town has been in the throes of conflict for awhile over the issue of local property taxes.
Some retired folks adamantly oppose any school levies as their taxes will increase and they have no personal stake in having good schools.
Others want the schools to be as high quality as possible. Some of this group have children in the schools. Some believe good schools make property values higher.
Both are valid perspectives. Each ethical decision we make will necessarily have benefits for some and be a detriment to others.
Makes me think of the situation in Israel. Both sides’ points of view make complete sense to them. So few things are black and white.
LikeLiked by 1 person
one thing that many people forget in this kind of situation, above and beyond the idea what school levies would do, is that there’s a good chance their own families will benefit, not just some random ‘school kids’; Whether or not you actually have children or grandchildren in that school is irrelevant. What is relevant is will the school levies improve the education of people who will one day possibly improve your lives and the rest of the town’s lives by giving back to the community.
True, it’s a crap shoot in some ways, but weighted on the idea that better education benefits everyone.
(Years ago our local town meeting vetoed en masse after great discussion to not raise the appallingly low salaries of the teachers in our schools. They were earning just above the poverty level, and married teachers had to often take second jobs (as did their spouses) to pay their bills.
When at the same town meeting the subject of a shiny new fire engine came up, everyone in that audience voted for it, no argument at all. sigh. )
LikeLike
They saw value in a fire truck and not in teachers!
LikeLike
indeed. It was big and shiny and appealed to that part of us that decorates christmas trees. Few people have respect (at least in a small town) for teachers, who are considered a cut above grave diggers and truckers. Why, I do not know. The general idea is, they get to dress nice, and get the Whole Summer Off, they lazy. Forgetting that summer off means they have to work elsewhere, and pay for their accreditation (sp.) ranking. sigh.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This happens even here. Teachers are not well paid. Just a grade above the police and parents expect them to make something out of their children
LikeLike
I submit that coercion is immoral under all circumstances (save for situations where it’s required for the purpose of self defense).
LikeLiked by 1 person
And I agree
LikeLike
In human affairs, black and white things are few and far between. Most situations are full of nuance.
I think a community with a good school benefits even those who might not have children
LikeLiked by 1 person
I agree wholeheartedly that good schools contribute to good communities. The advent of social media has brought deep polarization to us and we don’t even have to look into another’s eyes. Just slam out a message on a keyboard.
LikeLike
Conscientious military objectors are usually being confronted with the question: would you use a weapon to defend your wife / family when they are being threatened? The question is already faulty, as it implies you are already armed, which is out of the question if you are a pacifist.
Right and wrong cannot be captured by independently valid moral rules or principles, but are a matter rather of situational sensitivity (Aristotle) or the expression of good inner motives (Plato).
What is the right action for one person is not necessarily morally acceptable for another; there is a distinction between morally right action and obligation. We do not have strict principles of priority that will resolve all conflicts based on our values, thus we need to exercise judgements to resolve some conflicts that effect our values, but who is able to provide a moral deliberation before hand?
LikeLiked by 1 person
None. It is situational and our action can only be known after.
LikeLiked by 1 person
this is the kind of question that raises more problems and annoys all but the current person giving his answer. You really can’t say what would happen if…
and frankly the person who (in real time) takes the most of this on his shoulders has to live with his decision for the rest of his life. It’s right up there with ‘do you throw yourself on the live grenade to save your mates, or do you just holler and run like blazes?”
There is no answer, there is no right decision. Tails I win, heads you lose…
LikeLike
It’s a question with no real good outcome
LikeLike
A very good issue that you have raised. There are a number of extenuating circumstances that are never considered because they would make any possible solution questionable. Can any of us truly be objective about any answer or reply that we offer? I know it would be impossible for me to offer any thoughts because I would need to consider too many scenarios. The trolley would pass over and eliminate all potential or probable alternatives. Have a great week, my Kenyan brother! 🙂 Naked hugs!
LikeLike
What if your decision saves the lives of five al-Qaeda terrorists on their way to catching American Airlines flight 11 departing from Boston Logan International Airport in Massachusetts on morning of September 11 2001?
Would that decision produce “he outcome that creates the greatest good for the greatest number”?
For me the correct moral response to the “trolley problem” is to ask myself “will my intervention place anyone in greater danger than that already manifest within the current moment?”
LikeLike
Your question reminds me of the butterfly effect. One small action here resulting in a bigger consequence elsewhere. Should we then not act, let nature take its course
LikeLike
Good points, mak. I have to think about this for awhile.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hey Jeff. I think it is something worth thinking about
LikeLiked by 1 person
From a moral and ethical point of view the identify of the people should not matter. That is a measure of personal integrity.
But you have a point, in real life people often do let those things matter. They are called people of low degree. Low integrity, and corrupt – are some of the nicer and more polite things they are called. There are other words used that are not so nice.
LikeLike
I am not sure they are of low degree. How would one live with themselves knowing their action or inaction led directly to the demise of their child. How do you convince the spouse that I let our baby die to save a group of strangers?
LikeLike
also, this kind of numbing ‘what if” question suggests that the only ‘right’ answer involves a time machine so that you can study the future to decide who to save and who to sacrifice. If any.
LikeLike
The right answer also involves a what if scenario that might be far from reality
LikeLike