• Copernicus
    74
    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?
  • Astorre
    200


    Didn't interest me.
  • Copernicus
    74
    What do you personally follow? Consequential or categorical morality?
  • Astorre
    200


    Why am I obliged to think within the given framework?
  • NOS4A2
    10k


    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
    74
    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
    10
    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
    74
    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
    10
    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
    74
    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
    74
    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
    200


    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
    74
    the author of your notesAstorre

    I don't understand. I wrote my notes.
bold
italic
underline
strike
code
quote
ulist
image
url
mention
reveal
youtube
tweet
Add a Comment

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.