Two injured people - you can only take one to hospital ...

What do you do?

You may have come across the Trolley Problem – a catch-all term for a series of thought experiments in the ethics (and wider) field. If you haven’t here is the original Trolley Problem.

https://www.cleanpng.com/users/@gauchar.html

There is a runaway trolley (tram or train depending where you live – we’ll stick with trolley) barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person tied on the side track. You have two (and only two) options:

1.       Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main track.

2.       Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.

What do you do?

You may think that this, and the related, thought experiments are of academic interest only but the logic they employ have wide applicability, including in how the state decides what policies to introduce (and can). Governments are often effectively standing in front of the lever assessing which option to take – to fund a medicine, increase or decrease the speed limit, tax cuts, etc. Each policy, metaphorically, switches the tracks on which our societal train runs helping some, injuring others. Cynically, they are likely thinking about which option will bring the most votes, not societal benefits.

Try this one.

A terrorist has planted a bomb which will destroy a suburb of your city/town killing hundreds. There isn’t enough time to evacuate the whole city/town – you need to know the location of the bomb. Time and the bomb are ticking. If you were in charge, would you authorise torture to obtain the information?

This thought experiment highlights two schools of thought - the deontologists and utilitarians (or consequentialists). The deontological perspective asserts that certain actions – like torture – are wrong even if they have good consequences. Utilitarians believe actions are justified if they result in the greatest good for the greatest number. They would flip the switch without a qualm (a net saving of four lives) and authorise torture. (Aside: This thought experiment played out in real life - GÄFGEN V. GERMANY: THREAT OF TORTURE TO SAVE A LIFE?)

Which camp are you in? It’s okay to jump between them as well - I was never an absolutist.

If you’re interested in reading further about the Trolleyology (as it is sometimes called), I suggest starting with, Would You Kill the Fat Man?: The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and Wrong.

Before I discuss what interested me about these ethical thought experiments, I developed this thought experiment - it is in two parts.

You’re driving a borrowed two-seater sports car on a remote road and come across an accident. Two people are injured – one person is moderately injured and conscious, the other person has life-threatening injuries and is unconscious. The closest hospital is half an hour’s drive away and there’s no phone reception. You can only take one person in your car.

1.       If you take the person with life-threatening injuries, they have a 50% chance of surviving but will die if you leave them.

2.       If you take the moderately-injured person they will survive but if you leave them, they might die (20% chance).

Who do you take?

Have a think about this before continuing. I’ve put a picture of my partner’s retriever, Ruby, so you don’t see the changed scenario just yet.

Like most trolley problems, there is not an easy answer. If you take the moderately injured person, you will save a life but leave one person to die. If you take the person with life-threatening injuries, you could save them both … equally, they could both die.

Let’s add to the scenario.

As you are assessing the situation, providing what little help you can and working out who to take, the moderately-injured person says, “If you take me, I’ll make you wealthy.”

Who do you take?

Have a think about this before continuing. Here’s Ruby again, this time with a stick.

My interest is not in what you would do, but whether the money changed the scenario.

• Did you rethink the options?

• Did you have additional questions like, ‘would anyone find out?’ ‘How wealthy am I?’

• Did you need more time? Did you reiterate your first answer immediately?

Let me know!

The medical situation in the thought experiment is, of course, unchanged. By introducing a financial-gain aspect, what I want to add to the ethical dilemma is self-interest. Capitalist society and neoliberalism, has, for at least half a century, encouraged/demanded/brainwashed us to think of ourselves – to think in terms of ‘what’s in it for me?’.

Trolley problems are designed to make us reflect on our, societies and our personal, ethics. Yes, they are artificial but, as I said earlier, they echo aspects of our society and ourselves. I asked my partner how much she would sell Ruby for? She made it clear that Ruby is priceless!

In New Zealand, ethical issues are playing out daily as we get ready for a general election. The question that is seemingly guiding people’s voting decision is – which party will deliver me the most direct benefits. In a democracy, shouldn’t the question be – which party will deliver the best society for us all to enjoy? And so what if you get more money but the streets feel unsafe or the water infrastructure is falling apart. When will we consign the “me” society to history as we must if we are to tackle the problems on our doorstep.

Get in touch, comment or message me, and let me know what you decided and how the money changed the scenario - if it did. I’m working on related thought experiments as I want us, society, to be aware of the privileged position in which we have put money. We are at risk of becoming a people who know the cost of everything and the value of nothing.