Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "The Moral Side Of Murder"

The Trolley Car and the Moral Tightrope Walk

Imagine yourself in the driver's seat of a trolley car hurtling down the tracks. Suddenly, you spot a group of five workers ahead who are oblivious to the impending danger. As you panic, you realize that there is a side track that you can switch to, but doing so would mean sacrificing the life of one worker. What do you do?

This classic ethical dilemma, known as the Trolley Dilemma, forces us to confront the complexity of moral decision-making. The majority of people would choose to steer onto the side track, reasoning that it's better to sacrifice one life to save five. But why do we make this choice? And what happens when the scenario changes?

The Fat Man on the Bridge: A Twist in the Tale

Now, picture yourself as an onlooker standing on a bridge, witnessing the same trolley car hurtling towards the group of five workers. This time, however, there is a twist. To save the five workers, you must push a large, overweight man off the bridge and onto the tracks below. Would you do it?

Interestingly, most people hesitate when faced with this second scenario. The act of actively pushing someone off the bridge feels morally different from the first scenario, where the trolley car's trajectory is not directly caused by your actions. But is there a fundamental difference between the two situations? And does the principle of sacrificing one to save five still apply?

Active Choice versus Passive Consequence

The debate surrounding the Trolley Dilemma centers on the distinction between an active choice and a passive consequence. In the first scenario, you are merely redirecting the trolley car, and the death of the one worker is an unfortunate but unintended consequence. In the second scenario, however, you are actively pushing the fat man, directly causing his death.

Some argue that this active choice changes the moral calculus. They believe that intentionally taking a life, even to save others, is morally impermissible. Others contend that the outcome remains the same – sacrificing one to save five – regardless of the method. They argue that the principle of utilitarianism, which seeks to maximize overall happiness, still applies.

Bentham's Utilitarian Philosophy: Balancing Pleasure and Pain

Jeremy Bentham, the influential philosopher and founder of utilitarianism, would likely have a lot to say about the Trolley Dilemma. His philosophy aims to maximize overall happiness by balancing pleasure and pain. According to Bentham, the morally right action is the one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people.

When applying Bentham's utilitarian calculus to the Trolley Dilemma, it becomes clear that steering onto the side track aligns with the principle of sacrificing one to save five. By minimizing the overall pain and maximizing the overall pleasure, this choice seems to be the most morally sound.

Necessity as a Moral Defense: The Case of Dudley and Stephens

The Trolley Dilemma may seem like a purely hypothetical scenario, but history provides us with real-life cases that push the boundaries of moral decision-making. One such case is "The Queen versus Dudley and Stephens," which involved a shipwrecked crew resorting to cannibalism to survive.

In this chilling tale, the crew found themselves stranded at sea without food or water. Desperation set in, and they eventually made the horrific decision to kill and eat the cabin boy. When rescued, they were charged with murder. As a jury, would you morally exonerate them?

This case forces us to confront the limits of our moral judgments. While the majority might vote guilty, some may argue that extreme situations call for extreme measures. Survival, they argue, might justify morally reprehensible actions, even if they are not legally justifiable. Necessity becomes a moral defense, challenging our conventional notions of right and wrong.

The Complexity of Moral Decision-Making

The Trolley Dilemma and the case of Dudley and Stephens highlight the intricate nature of moral decision-making. These scenarios force us to grapple with the tension between the greater good and individual rights, the consequences of our actions, and the role of intention in moral judgments.

As we navigate this moral tightrope, it is essential to remember that there are no easy answers. The choices we make in these hypothetical scenarios reflect the complexities of our moral landscape. They challenge us to think deeply, to question our assumptions, and to confront the uncomfortable truths that lie beneath the surface.

In the end, the Trolley Dilemma reminds us that morality is not a clear-cut path but a buzzing, exciting, and ever-evolving exploration of what it means to be human.