trolley problem

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in moral philosophy and moral psychology with many variations, involving hypothetical ethical dilemmas about whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number of people. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway trolley (tram) or train is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) tied to the tracks, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial, etc.) are posed, each containing the option either to do nothing—in which case several people will be killed—or to intervene and sacrifice one initially "safe" person to save the others. Opinions on the ethics of each scenario turn out to be sensitive to details of the story that may seem immaterial to the abstract dilemma. The question of formulating a general principle that can account for the differing judgments arising in different variants of the story was raised in 1967 as part of an analysis of debates on abortion and the doctrine of double effect by the English philosopher Philippa Foot.…

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in moral philosophy and moral psychology with many variations, involving hypothetical ethical dilemmas about whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number of people. The series usually begins with a scenario in which a runaway trolley (tram) or train is on course to collide with and kill a number of people (traditionally five) tied to the tracks, but a driver or bystander can intervene and divert the vehicle to kill just one person on a different track. Then other variations of the runaway vehicle, and analogous life-and-death dilemmas (medical, judicial, etc.) are posed, each containing the option either to do nothing—in which case several people will be killed—or to intervene and sacrifice one initially "safe" person to save the others. Opinions on the ethics of each scenario turn out to be sensitive to details of the story that may seem immaterial to the abstract dilemma. The question of formulating a general principle that can account for the differing judgments arising in different variants of the story was raised in 1967 as part of an analysis of debates on abortion and the doctrine of double effect by the English philosopher Philippa Foot. Later dubbed "the trolley problem" by Judith Jarvis Thomson in a 1976 article that catalyzed a large literature, the subject refers to the meta-problem of why different judgements are arrived at in particular instances. Thomson and the philosophers Frances Kamm and Peter Unger have analyzed the trolley problem extensively. Thomson's 1976 article initiated the literature on the trolley problem as a subject in its own right. Characteristic of this literature are colourful and increasingly absurd alternative scenarios in which the sacrificed person is instead pushed onto the tracks as a way to stop the trolley, has his organs harvested to save transplant patients, or is killed in more indirect ways that complicate the chain of causation and responsibility. Earlier forms of individual trolley scenarios antedated Foot's publication. Frank Chapman Sharp included a version in a moral questionnaire given to undergraduates at the University of Wisconsin in 1905. In this variation, the railway's switchman controlled the switch, and the lone individual to be sacrificed (or not) was the switchman's child. The German philosopher of law Karl Engisch discussed a similar dilemma in his habilitation thesis in 1930, as did the German legal scholar Hans Welzel in a work from 1951. In his commentary on the Talmud, published in 1953¹, Avrohom Yeshaya Karelitz considered the question of whether it is ethical to deflect a projectile from a larger crowd toward a smaller one. Similarly, in The Strike, a television play broadcast in the United States on 7 June 1954, a commander in the Korean War must choose between ordering an air strike on an encroaching enemy force, at the cost of his own 20-man patrol unit; and calling off the strike, risking the lives of the main army of 500 men. Beginning in 2001, the trolley problem and its variants have been used in empirical research on moral psychology. It has been a topic of popular books. Trolley-style scenarios also arise in discussing the ethics of autonomous vehicle design, which may require programming to choose whom or what to strike when a collision appears to be unavoidable. More recently, the trolley problem has also become an Internet meme. ==Applicability in legal reasoning== The trolley problem has been widely discussed in legal theory as a means of exploring how law distinguishes between intentional harm, omission, and necessity. In criminal law, the scenario illustrates the tension between utilitarian and deontological approaches to culpability: while a utilitarian might justify diverting the trolley to minimise deaths, legal systems often treat deliberate killing as impermissible regardless of the net outcome. This distinction reflects the act–omission doctrine, under which a failure to prevent harm is generally less blameworthy than actively causing it. In English common law, courts have traditionally rejected the defence of necessity in cases involving the deliberate taking of life, even where doing so would save others. The leading precedent is R v Dudley and Stephens (1884), in which shipwrecked sailors were convicted of murder after killing a cabin boy to survive. The decision is often cited as a legal analogue to the trolley problem, emphasising that moral calculations of greater good do not justify intentional killing under the law. In tort law and regulatory policy, however, trolley-like reasoning appears in cost–benefit analyses where harm is balanced against risk reduction—such as in product design, environmental regulation, or accident prevention. The U.S. decision in United States v. Carroll Towing Co. (1947) articulated a formula weighing the burden of precautions (B) against the probability (P) and gravity (L) of potential harm (B < PL), effectively institutionalizing a utilitarian calculus within negligence law. More recent legal discussions have introduced the Trolley Problem into the legal regulatory framework for autonomous vehicles. As autonomous driving technology advances, legal scholars have begun to focus on how vehicle decisions in unavoidable collision scenarios are coded, and the potential legal liabilities that such coding may trigger.

Text derived from https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?oldid=1376497930 under CC BY-SA 4.0; modifications have been made.