Trolley Problem Ubuntu values the importance of empathy, collective responsibility and the broader impact.

Trolley Problem #

Please describe the Trolley Problem? #

The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment in ethics, originally introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967 and later developed by Judith Jarvis Thomson, among others. It presents a moral dilemma involving a trolley whose course, if unchanged, will lead it to kill five people tied to the tracks. You are standing beside a lever that can divert the trolley onto another track where only one person is tied. The central ethical question is whether it is more justifiable to pull the lever, thereby actively intervening to kill one person but saving five, or to do nothing and allow five to die.

This problem highlights several key issues in moral philosophy:

Utilitarianism vs. Deontology: The dilemma contrasts utilitarian ethics, which would advocate for minimizing total harm (hence, sacrificing one to save five), with deontological ethics, which focus on adherence to moral rules (such as “do not kill”) irrespective of the consequences.
The Doctrine of Double Effect: This principle, important in both ethical theory and moral theology, differentiates between actions with foreseen harmful effects and those with intended harm. In the Trolley Problem, diverting the trolley causes the death of one person as a side effect rather than as a means to an end, which might be morally preferable to directly intending harm, even if the outcomes are the same.
Agency and Responsibility: The problem examines the role of personal action versus inaction and how these influence our moral responsibility. The passive observer who does nothing can claim they did not cause the deaths, whereas pulling the lever makes one an active participant in the resulting harm.
Moral Luck: The scenario also touches on the concept of moral luck, where the morality of an action is contingent on outcomes beyond the agent’s control. The Trolley Problem is not just a theoretical exercise but also applies to real-world ethical decision-making, such as in medical ethics and emergency situations. It has also been discussed in the context of autonomous vehicles, where programming choices could potentially involve similar life-and-death decisions.

So, how should the Trolley Problem be solved in the modern world? #

The resolution of the Trolley Problem in the modern world is multifaceted, reflecting the complexity and diversity of ethical perspectives in contemporary society. No single solution satisfies all ethical frameworks, but several approaches can be considered:

Utilitarian Approach: This perspective would focus on the outcome that maximizes the overall well-being or minimizes harm. In the Trolley Problem, this would typically mean choosing to divert the trolley to kill one person instead of five, as this results in fewer lives lost. Utilitarianism is often used in policy-making and public health, where decisions must consider the greatest good for the greatest number.
Deontological Approach: From a deontological standpoint, the morality of an action is judged based on whether it adheres to established rules or duties, rather than the consequences of the action. Here, one might argue that it is wrong to take an active role in causing someone’s death (by pulling the lever), regardless of the consequences. Thus, inaction might be deemed the morally correct choice.
Virtue Ethics: This approach might focus on the character and intentions of the decision-maker rather than the act itself or its consequences. A virtue ethicist might ask what a courageous or compassionate person would do, potentially emphasizing the importance of taking decisive action to save lives.
Rights-Based Ethics: Another consideration could be the rights of the individuals involved. From this viewpoint, it might be argued that each person has a fundamental right not to be harmed, and thus one should not intervene in a way that infringes on an individual’s rights, even if it means a greater number of people might come to harm.
Ethics of Care: Focusing on relationships and responsibilities, an ethics of care approach might prioritize empathetic engagement and the context of the dilemma, potentially leading to different decisions based on the relational dynamics among the people involved.
Pragmatic Solutions in Technology and Design: In practical applications such as in the design of autonomous vehicles, solutions to analogous problems are typically approached through a combination of ethical theory, legal considerations, and public input. This might involve programming decisions made to reflect societal values and ethical principles as determined through democratic processes.
Legal and Social Policy Frameworks: The legal implications of such decisions (e.g., in autonomous vehicle regulations) would also influence the solution, as laws may dictate certain ethical obligations and prohibitions.
Public Discourse and Democratic Deliberation: In modern pluralistic societies, public discourse plays a crucial role in shaping how such ethical dilemmas are addressed. Engaging diverse communities in discussion about these issues can help surface a range of values and preferences that influence policy and decision-making.

In essence, the solution to the Trolley Problem in the modern world depends significantly on the ethical lenses through which it is viewed, the context in which it arises, and the values of the society dealing with the dilemma. As such, it remains a vibrant topic in moral philosophy, reflective of ongoing debates about human values and ethics in a rapidly changing world.

Please list around 20 societies/countries likely to foster one, or another solution, either legislatively, or culturally? #

Addressing how different societies or countries might approach a solution to the Trolley Problem involves considering how cultural values, legal frameworks, and historical contexts influence ethical decision-making. Here’s a speculative list that aligns various approaches with potential countries or societies based on their predominant ethical orientations, legal systems, and cultural values:

Utilitarian Approach #

United Kingdom: A history of utilitarian philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill.
United States: Practical considerations often guide public policy decisions, especially in areas like healthcare and public safety.
Singapore: Strong emphasis on communal welfare and pragmatic governance.
China: Collective well-being often prioritized in policy-making.
India: Utilitarian principles can be seen in large-scale policy decisions, balancing diverse population needs.

Deontological Approach #

Germany: Strong adherence to rules and regulations in both legal and ethical contexts.
Switzerland: Known for its commitment to principles, including in areas like neutrality and rights.
Japan: High value placed on duty and responsibility in both personal and professional settings.

Virtue Ethics #

Greece: Historical roots in Aristotelian ethics, which still influence contemporary cultural norms.
Italy: Cultural emphasis on character and integrity, reflective of its historical and religious traditions.

Rights-Based Ethics #

United States: Strong focus on individual rights embedded in the constitution and legal system.
Canada: Emphasis on human rights and individual freedoms within its legal framework.
Sweden: High priority on individual rights and equality, influencing both domestic and international policies.

Ethics of Care #

Netherlands: Policies often reflect a strong concern for social welfare and individual care.
Denmark: Emphasis on social care systems and community support reflects a broader ethical focus on nurturing and empathy.
New Zealand: Indigenous Māori values, which emphasize community and care, influence broader societal norms.

Pragmatic Solutions in Technology and Design #

South Korea: Rapid technological advancement with a strong ethical consideration in technology deployment.
Israel: Innovation in technology often accompanied by ethical debates, especially in military and security technologies.

Australia: Legal decisions often involve balancing pragmatic and ethical considerations, reflecting a pluralistic society.
Norway: Policies reflect a balanced approach, incorporating public welfare, ethical norms, and legal frameworks.

Public Discourse and Democratic Deliberation #

Finland: Known for its open and inclusive policy-making processes.
Ireland: Recent history of referendums and public discussions influencing significant policy decisions.

Each of these countries exhibits particular cultural and institutional predispositions that might influence how such a moral dilemma is approached and resolved, whether through legislation, public policy, or cultural norms.

What about South Africa? #

South Africa’s approach to ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem would likely reflect its unique socio-cultural and historical context. The nation’s ethical frameworks are informed by its diverse population, complex history of apartheid, and its ongoing struggles with issues of social justice and reconciliation.

Ethical Approaches in South Africa #

Ubuntu Philosophy: One of the most significant cultural influences in South Africa is the philosophy of Ubuntu, which emphasizes community, shared humanity, and mutual caring for all. This ethical framework could lead to an emphasis on solutions that prioritize collective well-being and the greater good, similar to utilitarian principles but deeply rooted in a sense of community and interconnectedness.
Rights-Based Approach: Post-apartheid South Africa has a strong focus on human rights, as enshrined in its constitution, which is considered one of the most progressive in the world. Decisions in hypothetical scenarios like the Trolley Problem might be approached with a keen awareness of the rights of individuals, reflecting the country’s legal and moral commitments to equality and human dignity.
Reconciliation and Moral Repair: The legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission (TRC) in South Africa highlights a societal value on reconciliation and moral repair. In ethical dilemmas, there might be a tendency to look for solutions that not only solve the immediate problem but also consider long-term impacts on social cohesion and healing.
Pragmatic and Community-Centric Decisions: Given the practical challenges faced by many in South Africa, such as inequality, poverty, and social unrest, decision-making might also be guided by pragmatic considerations that aim to stabilize and benefit community life.

Application to the Trolley Problem #

In the context of the Trolley Problem, South Africa’s diverse ethical orientations might encourage a deliberative approach that seeks to balance individual rights with communal well-being. The decision might be influenced by considerations of what is best for the community as a whole, guided by principles of Ubuntu, while also respecting the rights and dignity of all individuals involved.

In practice, any decision-making process would likely involve a rich dialogue, reflecting the nation’s emphasis on democratic participation and the diverse perspectives of its population. South Africa’s response to such ethical dilemmas showcases how deeply cultural values and historical experiences can shape ethical reasoning in complex and nuanced ways.

How would Ubuntu approach the Trolley Problem? #

The most likely solution to the Trolley Problem in South Africa would be influenced significantly by the philosophy of Ubuntu. Ubuntu is a Nguni Bantu term meaning “humanity,” often translated as “I am because we are,” and expresses the idea that individuals are fundamentally interconnected. This philosophy could profoundly shape the approach to the Trolley Problem in a way that emphasizes community impact and collective well-being over individual actions.

Ubuntu Approach to the Trolley Problem #

Collective Well-being: In the context of Ubuntu, the decision in the Trolley Problem might prioritize actions that ensure the greatest well-being for the community. This might lean towards saving the greater number of people (the five on the track) because it minimizes overall harm and loss to the community.
Moral Responsibility: Ubuntu emphasizes communal relationships and responsibilities. An individual facing the Trolley Problem might feel a strong moral responsibility to act, rather than to remain passive, because inaction could be seen as a failure to fulfill one’s duties to others.
Holistic Considerations: The decision-making process would likely consider not just the immediate outcomes of action versus inaction but also the longer-term impact on the community’s cohesion and the moral integrity of the society. How actions affect communal harmony and the collective conscience would be important.
Reconciliation and Dialogue: Reflecting the legacy of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, a solution might also involve considering what actions would best facilitate healing and reconciliation after the fact. For example, if one person were sacrificed to save five, the community might engage in rituals of mourning and reconciliation to heal those impacted by the decision.
Empathetic Engagement: Decisions might also be informed by a deep empathetic engagement with all involved, including the potential victims. This could mean that greater weight is given to the suffering of families and the broader community, influencing the choice towards minimizing this suffering.

In practical terms, facing the Trolley Problem, a decision guided by Ubuntu would likely not only consider the mathematical outcome (saving more lives) but also how the decision impacts the relational ties within the community and the moral health of society. This indigenous solution underscores the importance of empathy, collective responsibility, and the broader implications of one’s actions on the community’s well-being.