The Cable Car Paradox just got Real

We all are aware of the famous Trolley Problem that sent us on a long trip of moral dilemma. It is a highly debated subject amongst moral philosophers. The problem has spun many variations and internet memes around it. The problem goes as follows. There is a trolley heading towards five random (by random, it implies that none of them are any special relation to you) people tied to the track with no way to escape. They will eventually die if not saved. You are at a lever that could change the track in which the trolley is headed. The alternate track has one random person tied to it.

The question is if you will pull the lever consciously killing one person or let the trolley go without your interference, killing five people. Different people have different answers and approaches towards the problem. One argument is that by pulling the lever we can save five lives and increase the net positive life, and hence, is considered to have moral superiority. Its counter argument is that by pulling the lever one is consciously committing murder of an individual, but one is not responsible for the five deaths caused by ignoring the trolley because he was not the reason for the five people to be tied up on the track in the first place. This generally points to – one not having the right to take an other person’s life and hence the blame is on the one who tied them.

What is more interesting is how many variations popped up soon after the launch of the problem. For those choosing to pull the lever, would their decision change if the person on the alternate track is not random person, but a person with close relation like a loved one or a parent or a child. In this case, many would switch their decision, and leave the “net positive life” argument out.

An other challenging version for those who opt to pull the lever is – instead of lever, there is a sufficiently heavy person beside you who can stop the trolley if hit by it. If you decide to push him, you can push him without failing and sacrifice his life stopping the trolley and saving those five people. One has to take a more aggressive step to save the five, but the net result would be the same – sacrificing one for five. Many step down here arguing that pushing a person on the track is conscious and intentional murder, whereas pulling the lever is just a means to save five people. And an other version for those who opted to do nothing in any case is – what if the fat guy beside you is the one responsible for the five people being tied to the track in the first place? Since the argument for staying still is that you are not the one responsible for the five people getting tied, now that you’ve found the responsible one, will you push him or not?

This discussion brings a new question – If not five, then how many people does it take for you to pull the lever? Is it six, seven or all the way till the rest of the universe? Lets elaborate the extreme case. This is a hypothetical situation where you are in control of the lever. The alternate track has your loved one, the only person with whom you have any decent relation with. The default track is filled with all the people from the rest of the Universe, with whom you do not have any relation. The trolley has the capability to kill any number of people in its way. Also given that the existence/ absence of the people from the rest of the Universe will not have any effect on the basic requirements of your life, ie. you don’t need anyone else from them for you daily basic needs like food, water or electricity. Will you pull the lever in this case?

It has also spun a row of internet memes, some of which are – a supercomputer solving the trolley problem itself is on the alternate track, or the one on the alternate track is sufficiently far away that you cannot see him, although you know he exists and will die if you pull the lever, or the one with Harambe on the alternate track, you can either save Harambe by not acting, or save the Idea of Harambe by pulling the lever, causing his death and consequentially raising Harambe to fame. The Harambe incident, however, was a literal trolley problem with time constraint and uncertain probabilities.

The most out – of – the – fucking – box solution I came across was – let the front wheels of the trolley pass the junction and then pull the lever before the rear wheels of the trolley pass. This causes the trolley to fall out of its tracks and not run over anyone. Since the passenger count of the trolley is not mentioned, we can assume that it is on automatic system and none get hurt when the trolley gets damaged. Another argument is – if the wheels of trolley can rotate in axis perpendicular to the ground and the two tracks are sufficiently close, the trolley would instead progress with first set of wheels on default track and the rear wheels on alternate track, with a little loss in speed. This would result in deaths of every member tied to the tracks. Even if this doesn’t happen, you might get hurt as you are standing close to the junction. Now, would you do this if the lever was on the other side of the junction, the place between the two tracks where the trolley would certainly hit you if you played out this trick. This puts you in an other dilemma because, a new choice falls in your hands – to sacrifice your own life to save them all.

Putting the solutions of the problems aside, let’s discuss on different approaches towards the problem. Arguments on both sides claim moral superiority upon one another. Those supporting pulling the lever argue from “net-positive-life” perspective, that the net population of the Universe is more than the alternative case. Those supporting to do nothing argue about the intention behind pulling the lever – since we already know that the consequence of pulling the lever is death of a person, that idea is somewhere embedded in the intention behind the act – and hence it is murder to pull the lever, which is not acceptable.

But the most convincing approach towards the problem is another variation called “The Quantum Trolley Problem”. What makes this one unique is – one not having an absolute certainty over the control of the lever. The problem goes as follows – You are in a state of uncertainty where you can be one of the seven people present in the scene with equal probability. Only after you decide what the person at the lever should do, you enter the scene. The probability that you get to live no matter what you choose is 1/7 – you are the one who pulls the lever. If you choose to pull the lever, the probability of you death is 1/7, whereas is 5/7 if you decide not to pull the lever. Hence, it makes perfect sense for one to decide to pull the lever in this case. In fact, it is the most rational approach towards the problem. I believe every problem should be approached from this “quantum” perspective, decision making after assuming yourself in shoes of every possible person affected by the decision.

My Answer: I agree to the fact that pulling the lever is morally superior, but I also consider the problems that come with it. Let’s assume I pulled the lever, then what about the consequences of the person’s death. Since, I’ve consciously acted with foreknowledge of the consequences, I lay responsible for the death of the poor man and hand his family the right to sue me. Also, I am uncertain of the five people, whom I’ve saved, if they will support me through this case or disappear as they never asked me to pull the lever. Here, the only person to blame is me. But that’s not the case if I stand still. Here, I could save lives, but choose not to, which is not a crime. Although I agree that the stance I take is not morally sound, it would put me in less trouble from law. If in an election, I had to choose who runs the civilisation, I’d choose the one who pulls the lever.

to be continued…