The Death of Non-Interference: A Challenge to Individualism in the Trolley Dilemma

Copernicus

The Death of Non-Interference: A Challenge to Individualism in the Trolley Dilemma

Introduction

The trolley problem has long stood as a central test case in moral philosophy, pitting consequentialist ethics against deontological individualism. Traditionally, the dilemma arises when a trolley is already hurtling toward three individuals, and one must decide whether to divert it to kill one instead. The deontologist appeals to non-interference—refusing to take action that directly kills—even if it means more will perish. The utilitarian argues for minimizing harm, asserting that killing one to save three is the only rational choice.

But what happens when we reframe the problem? Suppose the trolley is not moving toward anyone until you decide its course. You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. There is no longer an option to “do nothing.” Every outcome stems from your deliberate agency.

This reframing radically alters the moral terrain. The shield of passivity collapses, and the philosopher is forced to grapple with the uncomfortable truth: when no option spares all lives, what does morality require?

Collapse of the Passive/Active Distinction

In the classic problem, the deontologist distinguishes between killing and letting die. The three who die are casualties of circumstance, not of deliberate agency. The one who would die if the track is switched, however, would be murdered by intervention.

But in the reframed scenario, both outcomes are active: you must choose whom to kill. There is no neutral path. By eliminating the possibility of “inaction,” this version strips deontology of its central defense.

The Utilitarian Advantage

Here, utilitarianism appears vindicated. Since one must act, and all acts cause harm, the rational course is to minimize harm by directing the trolley toward one. The calculus is straightforward: fewer deaths are better than more deaths.

Thus, the reframing places the individualist in a corner. No longer able to appeal to the sanctity of non-interference, the individualist ethic risks moral paralysis.

The Challenge to Individualism

This leaves a direct challenge: if every available option involves direct harm, can an individualist ethic survive intact? If rights are inviolable, what does one do when reality forces their violation? Can individualism meaningfully respond, or must it collapse into silence in the face of tragedy?

Questions for Debate

1. If all available options violate rights, can morality demand a choice at all?
2. Does the reframed problem prove that utilitarianism is the only viable framework when non-interference is impossible?
3. Can an individualist ethic survive scenarios where all choices involve direct harm?
4. Is the moral guilt of killing one equal to the moral guilt of killing three, or are outcomes morally significant regardless of principles?
5. Does the reframed trolley problem show that philosophy must move beyond rigid doctrines and toward pluralistic ethics?

Copernicus

@Astorre @Tom Storm @Banno @Outlander @ChatteringMonkey @I like sushi @83nt0n thoughts?

Astorre

↪Copernicus

Didn't interest me.

Copernicus

↪Astorre

What do you personally follow? Consequential or categorical morality?

Astorre

↪Copernicus

Why am I obliged to think within the given framework?

NOS4A2

↪Copernicus

If all available options violate rights, can morality demand a choice at all?

Whatever the choice would be, should it violate rights, it would be an immoral choice.

Does the reframed problem prove that utilitarianism is the only viable framework when non-interference is impossible?

It only proves that one has to remove other options for utilitarianism to be a viable moral framework.

Can an individualist ethic survive scenarios where all choices involve direct harm?

Yes. The future is unknown. One cannot know if his choices result in direct harm until that time comes. One can only do his best to avoid inflicting that harm or protect others from it. In your scenario, his only option is to try to stop the train or remove the people from the track.

Is the moral guilt of killing one equal to the moral guilt of killing three, or are outcomes morally significant regardless of principles?

I assume killing more people equals more guilt, but then again I’ve never killed anyone.

Does the reframed trolley problem show that philosophy must move beyond rigid doctrines and toward pluralistic ethics?

Next time we might try removing the utilitarian options and asking the same question.

Copernicus

↪Astorre

Just asking.

Copernicus

Next time we might try removing the utilitarian options and asking the same question. — NOS4A2

You can't.

Yes. The future is unknown. One cannot know if his choices result in direct harm until that time comes. One can only do his best to avoid inflicting that harm or protect others from it. In your scenario, his only option is to try to stop the train or remove the people from the track. — NOS4A2

We're talking preference here, not capability.

ProtagoranSocratist

The thing I have never liked about this problem is that the "obvious choice is to divert the trolley to kill one person instead of three", and so is the framing of right and wrong.

However, I think such a situation begs a lot of questions:

-how far away from the trolley is the potential victims?

-if killing is wrong, then is saving all of them an option?

-is the lone person tied to the tracks beautiful or famous? (kidding, kidding!)

-do you know any of the people involved?

If the situation were to actually occur, then these would all be considerations, even the shallow one, but sense it's a fictional "right and wrong" then you're not really allowed allowed anything other than choosing fewer deaths, as you said in your post. If someone had misanthropic ethics, they might choose the other option, but I think honestly people would be influenced by who is getting killed. I wonder if anyone has gotten famous because they chose a clear "fewer deaths" option as some have argued for using nuclear bombs in WWII (which is extremely theoretical).

This is something I often think about in my anxious thoughts: if i had to choose between one of my cats or a thousand people, or one of my cats and a family member who i don't really like, what would I choose? For such a thing to come true, i generally imagine it would have to involve some devil/satan type forcing me to make the choice.

Copernicus

↪ProtagoranSocratist

What if they're absolutely identical entities, with nothing distinguishable among them?

And I actually changed the scenario, if you had read it carefully.

ProtagoranSocratist

What if they're absolutely identical entities, with nothing distinguishable among them? — Copernicus

that's exactly what i was trying to criticize: real life moral and ethical decisions are complex, laden with fear, laden with shame, laden with politics. The way you are carrying out this exercise insinuates that there can only be one answer,

You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. — Copernicus

i did read that, you made a false assumption ("if you had read it carefully"), and you did so in a seemingly patronizing/insulting manner.

That doesn't add anything to the original problem, but a "must". So is there a satanic figure, or someone holding a gun to your head in this new problem saying "i'm gonna count to 5, and if you don't choose ill kill you!" ?

THAT would add a new dimension to the scenario, not "must".

Copernicus

not "must" — ProtagoranSocratist

real life moral and ethical decisions are complex, laden with fear, laden with shame, laden with politics. — ProtagoranSocratist

Principles don't bother with practicalities.

Copernicus

you did so in a seemingly patronizing/insulting manner. — ProtagoranSocratist

I apologize if you felt that way, that was my informal way of saying "if you have read it carefully, then you should already know what I'm talking about."

Astorre

↪Copernicus

Human dialogue, unlike dialogue with AI, implies participation and mutual interest, which builds empathy and a desire for exchange. Before asking questions, in my opinion, some interest in the dialogue is required (unlike with AI). If I'm not mistaken, Aristotle wrote something similar in his "Rhetoric." Regarding your question, before asking about morality or ethics, I recommend inquiring with the author of your notes yourself.

Copernicus

↪Astorre

the author of your notes — Astorre

I don't understand. I wrote my notes.

T Clark

Suppose the trolley is not moving toward anyone until you decide its course. You must direct it either toward three people or toward one person. There is no longer an option to “do nothing.” Every outcome stems from your deliberate agency. — Copernicus

What are the consequences if I don’t choose and just do nothing? Will everyone die?

One thing you haven’t taken into account is liability. When I choose, I take on liability for the consequences. It might not be unreasonable for me to make no choice at all as a way of protecting myself from that liability.

Copernicus

One thing you haven’t taken into account is liability. When I choose, I take on liability for the consequences. It might not be unreasonable for me to make no choice at all as a way of protecting myself from that liability. — T Clark

It is not about practical reasoning. If you were given a choice, a hypothetical scenario, or should I say, imperative, what is your preferable choice?

T Clark

It is not about practical reasoning. If you were given a choice, a hypothetical scenario, or should I say, imperative, what is your preferable choice? — Copernicus

All other things being equal, sure, I would pick the action that lead to the least number of deaths. I don’t think that has anything general to say about the two moral options.

Copernicus

↪T Clark

I don’t think that has anything general to say about the two moral options — T Clark

It does... In terms of deontological individualism.

T Clark

It does... In terms of deontological individualism. — Copernicus

It doesn’t seem that way to me, but since neither of your options match my understanding of morality, no need for us to take it any further.

Tom Storm

↪Copernicus

Not keen on thought experiments, they seem too abstract and disconnected from real-life situations to be useful to me.

Morality, as I understand it, is a contingent code of conduct. I would settle on the option that kills fewer people. The problem, of course, is that the person you kill may well be a brain surgeon, while the ones who live could be three scumbags. I don't theorise much about morality, I act intuitively.

hypericin

No longer able to appeal to the sanctity of non-interference, the individualist ethic risks moral paralysis. — Copernicus

Not necessarily. Suppose A, B, C are on track 1, and D on track 2. The choice of track 1 can be broken down into 3 bundled yet district choices: to run over A, B, and C. The choice to run over A can be judged equivalent to the choice to run over D, and when comparing the track 1 or 2 decision, cancel out. This is consistent: if both tracks contained 1 victim, and one was forced to choose, neither choice would be a murder. But in the example, track 1 can be judged as committing two murders, and track 2, none.

One can maintain this, and yet maintain that non intervention trumps this calculus. I don't agree, but that is not the point.

Copernicus

Morality, as I understand it, is a contingent code of conduct. — Tom Storm

That's ethics.

Not keen on thought experiments, they seem too abstract and disconnected from real-life situations to be useful to me. — Tom Storm

Understood. Thank you for your time.

Copernicus

↪T Clark

understood. Thank you for your time.

Copernicus

↪hypericin

I don't mean to be rude but that reduces people to numbers, something consequentialists do.

hypericin

↪Copernicus

Consider the case where the person at the switch was forced to choose between two tracks, each with one person.

In your view, would the deontologist condemn the person at the switch as a murderer, no matter what choice they made?

Copernicus

↪hypericin

he'll be in a paradox. The same as this one. Because as a deontologist, he cannot put 3 above 1 nor vice versa.

Banno

A trolly is that from which one serves tea.

The Tram Problem, as first articulated by Philippa Foot, concerned double effect; it's not an attempt to juxtapose deontology and utilitarianism. But that's how it is sometimes used in undergrad introductions to ethics. The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve.That's why they make for long and often tedious threads.

javi2541997

The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve.That's why they make for long and often tedious threads. — Banno

Isn't this wonderful? :wink:

Banno

↪javi2541997

An analytic delight! :party:

Copernicus

The problem with modal moral quandaries generally is that one can always make them impossible to solve. — Banno

There lies the true excellence of humankind. And solving those problems and coming up with a principial solution is the price you pay for the privilege of humanship.

The Death of Non-Interference: A Challenge to Individualism in the Trolley Dilemma

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions