The Burden of Reason
by Gemma Mindell
You are standing on a footbridge overlooking a narrow track. Below, five workers are pinned against a wall, unaware that a runaway trolley is hurtling toward them at lethal speeds. There is no lever to pull and no way to warn them in time. Beside you stands a very large man leaning over the railing to watch the drama. You realize that if you push him over the edge, his bulk is sufficient to stop the trolley’s progress. He will perish instantly, but the five workers will live. The choice rests entirely with you.
What would YOU do?
A technician adjusts a dial as you stand before the gleaming chrome tank. He promises a life of absolute bliss: every ambition achieved, every love returned, and every sunset more vibrant than the last. Inside the machine, your brain will perceive these simulations as indistinguishable from reality. You will forget the tank exists, living a perfect existence while your physical form remains suspended in saline. The world outside will continue with its grit and sorrow, but you will never feel it again. The choice is yours to make.
What would YOU do?
Imagine standing in a void, stripped of your identity. You are about to be born into a new world, but you have no knowledge of who you will be. You might be a billionaire’s heir or a penniless orphan. You could be born with perfect health or a chronic disability. Behind this curtain, your race, gender, and talents are a total mystery. You are tasked with drafting the laws that will govern this society before you enter it. You must decide how resources and rights are distributed.
What would YOU do?
The city is quiet until the notification pings on your device. The Central Health Computer has run the numbers. Five citizens are currently in critical organ failure; each is a perfect match for your biology. Under the Social Utility Act, your number was drawn in the morning lottery. A medical transport unit is idling outside your door to collect you for "The Greater Good." By sacrificing one healthy life, five are preserved. You have ten minutes to comply before the unit enters. Your life is the price for their survival.
What would YOU do?
One morning, you awake in a sterile hospital bed to find a complex network of tubes connecting your body to a stranger in the bed beside you. A doctor explains that this man is a world-renowned violinist suffering from a fatal kidney ailment. While you slept, a Society of Music Lovers kidnapped you and performed the surgery. To survive, he must remain physically tethered to your kidneys for exactly nine months. If you unplug the tubes now, he will die instantly.
You are trapped in this involuntary union. What would YOU do?
1. The Trolley Problem
The classic "Trolley Problem" was first introduced by British philosopher Philippa Foot in her 1967 essay, "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect." Its origins are rooted in a desire to explore the nuances of moral responsibility and the distinction between intended outcomes and foreseen side effects. While earlier thinkers had touched upon similar ethical considerations, Foot's visualization of a runaway trolley provided a clear, accessible framework for debating utilitarian and deontological ethics.
Deciding to pull the lever and sacrifice one person to save five aligns with utilitarianism, prioritizing the greatest good for the greatest number. This perspective emphasizes that the ethical value of an action is determined by its consequences. In contrast, choosing not to pull the lever reflects a deontological viewpoint, which argues that certain actions, such as killing, are inherently wrong, regardless of the consequences. From this perspective, actively causing one person's death, even to save others, would violate a fundamental moral duty, making inaction the ethically preferable choice.
2. The Experience Machine
Robert Nozick, an American philosopher, introduced "The Experience Machine" in his seminal 1974 work, "Anarchy, State, and Utopia." Nozick’s aim was to challenge hedonism, the belief that pleasure is the ultimate good and the primary goal of human life. By asking whether people would choose a guaranteed, perfect but artificial experience over a flawed, unpredictable reality, he hoped to reveal whether humans truly value "actually doing" things and being a certain way, or just the pleasurable sensations associated with those actions.
If a person chooses to plug into the Experience Machine, it suggests they value personal satisfaction and pleasure above all else, aligning with a hedonistic worldview. They may believe that subjective experience is the only thing that ultimately matters. On the other hand, a refusal to plug in implies a belief that reality, authenticity, and actual achievement possess intrinsic value, separate from the happiness they might bring. This choice suggests that being a certain type of person and having a genuine connection to the world is more important than a perfect, but simulated, existence.
3. The Veil of Ignorance
Proposed by the American political philosopher John Rawls in his 1971 book, "A Theory of Justice," the "Veil of Ignorance" is a hypothetical scenario designed to determine the principles of a fair and just society. Rawls' work was a direct challenge to utilitarian theories of justice, which he believed could lead to the sacrifice of individual rights for the sake of the greater good. The veil of ignorance aims to eliminate personal bias, forcing individuals to consider justice from the perspective of the least advantaged members of society.
From behind the veil of ignorance, rational, self-interested individuals would likely conclude that a just society must guarantee a minimum level of resources and opportunities for everyone. This line of reasoning would favor political and social structures that prioritize the protection of basic liberties and ensure that social and economic inequalities are arranged so that they are to the greatest benefit of the least advantaged. Decisions made under these conditions would promote fairness and social welfare, as individuals seek to protect themselves from the worst possible outcomes.
4. The Survival Lottery
First introduced by philosopher John Harris in his 1975 essay, "The Survival Lottery," this thought experiment was specifically designed to critique certain aspects of utilitarianism, particularly when applied to healthcare and resource allocation. Harris aimed to explore whether the moral duty to save lives should be pursued to its logical, and arguably monstrous, conclusion, highlighting the potential for utilitarianism to trample on individual rights in its pursuit of maximizing utility.
Advocates of the survival lottery would argue from a strict utilitarian position, contending that a system that sacrifices one life to save two or more is ethically sound because it maximizes the number of lives saved. This viewpoint prioritizes the collective good over individual autonomy. Opponents, likely from a deontological or rights-based perspective, would conclude that such a system would be inherently unjust. This perspective would hold that every individual has a fundamental right to life that cannot be violated, even for the sake of a greater number of people, making the lottery morally unacceptable.
5. The Violinist
Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson introduced "The Violinist" in her 1971 essay, "A Defense of Abortion," which became one of the most famous and debated pieces in contemporary applied ethics. Thompson's purpose was to create a scenario that would isolate the question of bodily autonomy, arguing that even if a fetus is granted a right to life, that right does not necessarily include the right to use another person's body without their consent. This thought experiment fundamentally changed the terms of the abortion debate.
Choosing to detach from the violinist would support the conclusion that a person's right to control their own body (bodily autonomy) is paramount. From this perspective, the act of sustaining another person’s life, while noble, is not a moral obligation that overrides individual freedom and physical integrity. Choosing to remain attached, perhaps as a result of a strong sense of moral obligation to save a life, would align with a view that values the preservation of life above personal autonomy.