The Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem is a classic philosophical thought experiment introduced in most ethical theory classes. I am not sure why it is a trolley, but in San Francisco and all, I suppose the story is appropriate.

A runaway trolley is racing down some tracks. You look ahead, and you see that if it continues on this track, it will run over five people. When this story is traditionally told, the storyteller often says these "five people were tied to the tracks by a mad philosopher." However, I assure you, the term mad philosopher is almost always an oxymoron (save in the case of Nietzsche; but I digress). You also see that there is a switch to move the trolley to another track. However, there is one person tied to this track.

If you let the trolley take its course, it will kill five. If you flip the switch, it will kill one. What is the ethically praiseworthy action (or the lesser of two evils) in this case? Most people (I would imagine) lean towards flipping the switch; the one person is a tragedy, but one is of course smaller than five.

Take this second scenario. A runaway trolley is racing down some tracks. A crowd of spectators has gathered on top of an overpass to see this trolley. Why? Because some mad philosopher tied five people down on the tracks and the trolley will run them over. But, you realize that the person in front of you (taking many pictures) is a really fat man. In fact, if you pushed him off the overpass and onto the tracks, you can effectively stop the trolley and save five people.

Now, wait. Most people (perhaps you) might have thought that killing one and saving five in the first scenario was permissible. But you might be repulsed at doing this in the second scenario. Strange. What exactly is the fundamental difference between the two situations? Is there a fundamental difference between the two situations? Here are some thoughts. You intend harm to the fat man whereas you don't intend harm to the single person. Or maybe you actively harm the fat man whereas you don't actively harm the single person. But what about utilitarianism? In both cases, five lives are greater than one. What if instead of five, it was fifty? Would you actively kill one person to save fifty? Fifty thousand? Or, what if instead of the fat man, it was your mother? How would that change things?