Resolution to a Modern Trolley Problem

“An empty train is approaching a junction. You are standing by the points. If you do nothing, the train will run on and hit a baby who has crawled onto the line. If you alter the tracks, the train will be diverted and will run over a drunken old tramp who is lying on the track. Do you divert the train?” In the case of a train fast approaching a junction and there is a lever that I can pull which would alter the course of the train to not kill the baby and instead kill a drunken old tramp, I would pull it. This moral dilemma is very similar to the controversial Trolley Problem which has incited debate for over decades (since the 1900s when Philippa Foot, a British philosopher, introduced it to the world). Many would argue to hit the baby but I believe that changing the tracks and hitting the old tramp is the more logical and ethical decision. Firstly, what is a tramp? A tramp is defined as “a long-term homeless person who travels from place to place as a vagrant, traditionally walking all year round” (Wikipedia) and this definition along with a common understanding of an ‘old, drunk tramp’ is what I am stemming my argument from. A tramp is homeless and without roots so, because of this, they most likely do not hold a position in society. If they were to be killed, there is little chance that this would impact society in a detrimental fashion and, even more so, it would most likely not impact anyone close to them as tramps generally do not have close family or friends. If we contrast this with a baby, the same cannot be said. A baby is perceived as a bundle of joy to a family, it is loved and is endearing but rather foolish. It crawled onto the tracks by mistake but its loss would deal a severe blow to the society in which lives. The parents would feel distraught: they would feel morally responsible for the baby’s death as they enabled it to crawl away. In addition to this, one should also look at the situation from an economic perspective. In economics, we define a key term “Opportunity Cost” as the loss of other alternatives when one alternative is chosen. Taking away the baby’s life would have severe opportunity cost: we cannot predict the future impact this baby would have on society and the world so taking away its life could be losing societal development. The baby could’ve been the next Isaac Newton or the next Martin Luther King Junior. There’s no way to predict what the impact on society would be if the baby were to be killed. However, the same cannot be said for the drunken old tramp. As usual, the dilemma refuses to give quantitative or in-depth data about the situation and simply uses the generic term “old” but when I analyse this, I see this word to be referring to a person who has lived a long life and has little time left on the world. Because this tramp would have already spent a large portion of his life on the Earth, we can, therefore, presume he would have no later impact on society. There is a next-to-nothing chance that this man would invent a new form of energy in his late 90s. This drunken old tramp has practically no future so, from a utilitarian approach, people would choose to kill him rather than the baby which does have a potential future. Although I believe that everyone in the world has the same intrinsic value as no human life should be considered to be superior or more important, I believe in the concept of practical value. This measure of value is less subjective and is more quantitative: does the drunken old tramp have a higher level of future productivity than the baby? No. Does the drunken old tramp have a job where he is being productive and bettering society? Probably not. Will the baby have one? Probably yes. As the moral dilemma refuses to give detail regarding the social situation and social status of the two characters in this dilemma, I am having to rely on my assumptions and if these assumptions do indeed hold true, then I believe that (through a utilitarian perspective) it would be morally justified to kill the old tramp rather than the baby. But, as I have mentioned already, this is a utilitarian’s perspective on the moral dilemma at hand. Utilitarianism is a form of consequentialism as a utilitarian believes that the “most ethical choice is the one that will produce the greatest good for the greatest number” (University of Texas). And as ethics and morals are such contentious subjects, I must bring in another perspective in order to ascertain a more logical and supported solution to the matter at hand. I will now focus on this issue from a relativist’s view. A relativist believes that the notions of right and wrong are relative to a particular society so these rules and beliefs differ from one society to the next. This is why I believe that if this scenario had defined where the situation took place, there would be a more concrete solution. For example, if this moral dilemma took place in the East (eg. in a country such as China) where there is a strong culture of respecting and protecting the elderly, the person who is able to swap the trains’ track would choose to kill the baby rather than the old drunken tramp. Even though the baby, in the future, would have a higher practical output: the elderly are to be respected and protected more than a baby should. However, if we take this scenario to a different country in the East (eg. India), there is a strong culture of ignoring the homeless and letting them do whatever they are doing. Because of this, even though there is respect for the elderly, I believe that most people would sweep in to save the baby rather than the elderly tramp. This just goes to show that this scenario could be perceived in a multitude of different perspectives and can yield many different responses simply because different societies and cultures would perceive it differently. In addition to this, all moral dilemmas are perceived differently by different people. The person who has the ability to flip the switch may be the mother of the baby and would follow her maternal compassion to save her child or the person who can swap the train tracks could be the drunken tramp’s friend and would attempt to save the tramp. But, I am digressing. I’m trying to poke holes in the dilemma as I believe that although I am concrete in my decision to kill the old tramp, there is no definite answer. The last perspective on this moral dilemma comes from Immanuel Kant. One of the famous Maxims which many abide by and make moral decisions from is the classic “Thou shalt not kill". Kant takes this idea to a whole new level by saying that even being involved in the dilemma is immoral as you are actively partaking in murder. Any rational beings would see your act as immoral (according to Kant). He would say to let the train run its due course and kill the baby. This I cannot agree with as it makes no sense that doing nothing is better than doing something. I believe that even though you are passively involved in the dilemma, you are involved to a large extent. Even if you believe that you shouldn’t get involved but you are already involved, you are accountable. Therefore, you should then actively make a decision to either let the train run its due course or swap tracks. Even though many would argue to save the tramp and kill the baby, I still stand by the utilitarian argument that Judith Jarvis Thomson put forward so eloquently in Bystander: “though the bystander does indeed infringe the one’s right not to be killed, his doing that which saves the five—turning the trolley—does not, in and of itself, infringe any right of the one’s.” It is not morally wrong to kill the party with less value as this is saving the party with more value. I am taking this principle and applying it to my perception of this faux-Trolley Problem: a person should choose to flip the switch according to their own virtues and perceptions of the situation. Through this, I believe that they would feel obliged to kill the homeless tramp simply on the basis that it is evident, according to Utilitarians, his life is less valuable. To conclude, I would just like to reiterate that there is no right or wrong answer and that I may indeed not offer a solution to this issue that you believe in. This is simply my perception of the situation and simply my belief that the baby holds a higher practical value that the drunken old tramp. Sources: Yale Law School Legal Scholarship Repository | Yale Law School Research, digitalcommons.law.yale.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://www.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=4080&context=ylj. Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, www.jesp.org/index.php/jesp/article/view/227/188. "Utilitarianism." Ethics Unwrapped, 17 Feb. 2017, ethicsunwrapped.utexas.edu/glossary/utilitarianism. "Tramp." Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, Wikimedia Foundation, Inc, 23 July 2002, en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tramp. Accessed 28 Dec. 2020.