You know the problem!
Many groups when surveyed veer towards a 90% majority of "pulling the lever" to sacrifice the one person for the five people. Of course, no one is happy to do it (I would assume), and the problem itself isn't immune to criticism- over the years, philosophers have criticised the problem for a range of things including how extreme and unconnected to real life it is. There's also the question of when push comes to shove, will people really "pull the lever" (i.e. do something 'active') or will they simply "do nothing and claim deniability" (of course, there's also the very logical claim to deniability that "at least one in five people may notice the trolley coming and be able to do something", "if the train was due to go on that trolley, then the five people perhaps already know", etc).
For the purpose of this ramble, I am going to take it at its face value and only focus on the decisions people make or believe they will make and how they justify it, since only that is 'Economics'; everything else is Ethics, Psychology, or Philosophy. Why do I say that? Why is that Economics? Because, economics taught us that 5 is greater than 1; the Head of Sustainability in a Fortune 500 company once mentioned in a talk to my MBA class "some things are very obvious: investing in 50 children's school education is always going to be better than investing in 1 child's college education"-- I had so many problems with that statement and perhaps I will continue to unpack it in my next few blogs / rambles, but my instant response to him was "what if that 1 child you could put through college was Malala".
I was recently in a space where the trolley problem was discussed and in an effort to tease our thinking, the course instructor asked "what if the 1 person is a leading economist or philosopher or basically someone significant". Majority of our public policy class quickly switched their answer to save the economist; ironically enough, I had a problem with this and that's where this blog / ramble comes in :)
I still think it's not an easy decision to pick educating 50 children at a high school level over educating Malala at a postgraduate level; but I do not think the reverse is easy either. I think the reverse being easy is what 'nuanced' economics wants us to believe. Long-termist thinking, systems thinking, etc have been weaponised to let us believe "one human's life is or can be more valuable than another human's life". We seem to have forgotten the fundamental truth that "every saint has a past and every sinner has a future". In this particular instance, what if 1 of the 50 children (or realistically all of them!) had the potential to become Malala in the future; aren't we depriving them of the chance to be? Similarly what if the economist, philosopher, or famous person in the trolley scenario only had 2-3 years in their life left while the five on the other side while not as 'conventionally academically inclined' as the economist were farmers, each with 20-30 working years left?
So, what is the "answer" I propose you ask? You probably don't ask! By this point in this ramble, you should know I am better off as an arm-chair critic and overthinker; decision-making and certainty are not my virtues. But I am starting to think and I submit to you that indecision and uncertainty could be virtues too. In a world where we're led to think that every decision is "this or that", we need to create more opportunities to stop that trolley!
Yes, ultimately you have to make a decision; and as long as we live in this zero-sum capitalist world, you're going to have to make a choice of some sorts and your heart is going to ache no matter which way you go... But no matter which way you go, as long as you've the opportunity and you access the opportunity to think before and after, and you continuously reflect on what your intentions and impact are, in my head, you'll be fine-- at least as fine as you can be. I only have a problem with folks who are too decisive and too sure of their decisions too quick: that is a sign of "rational and economist thinking" blinding you! You've bought so much into the idea of systems-2 (rational) thinking being better that you've lost touch with your systems-1 (gut) and you're practically just a walking talking calculator.
If all of us were simply walking talking calculators who did the "rationally superior" thing, we wouldn't have had any of our social movements: we would still be living in a world in which Oxford scholars throw stones at women who try to enter and learn at the Sheldonian... come to think of it, in many ways we still are; which is why we need more not less systems-1 or first principle thinking.
PS: "Do not unto others..." If you or a loved one were on that track on either side and if the ethicist chooses to 'sacrifice' you, what you would want them to do (take some time to think, take some time to mourn, etc), do, please. Thank you!
PPS: In a way most of us are just living out some version of 'Devil Wears Prada', waiting to be woken up. Yes, in the moment it might feel like Miranda is the most important person in the room and everyone wants to grow up and be her (she is the person you'd save from the trolley; she is the person who's education you'll fund... you get the idea!); but hopefully we all realise sooner than later that she is just a bully, and we don't really want to live like her, no matter how "rewarding".
