There are many unreasonable claims in the spiritual world. However, we often cannot verbalize the exact reason why they don’t make sense. They make us uncomfortable and confuse us.
One example is the troller problem in spirituality. Let’s talk about it.
The trolley problem
Sometimes, we want to verbalize the reasons for feeling uncomfortable with others’ claims. There are many unreasonable teachings, especially in spiritual teaching.
One example is the wrong application of the trolley problem.
The trolley problem is a thought experiment for ethics or philosophy. It is a question of how to decide in the following situation:
- There is a runaway trolley.
- You are at a railway switch, and you can pull the lever to change the track of the trolley.
- If you do nothing, the trolley will kill 5 people down the track.
- If you pull the lever, the trolley will go to another track and will kill 1 person.
- In this situation, should you pull the lever?
Originally, the trolley problem is similar to the one above, despite many variations. It is not a bad theme in terms of triggering philosophical thinking.
Irrational usages in spirituality
However, some irrational spiritualists unreasonably apply this problem to their spiritual claims. It is as follows:
- You are facing the trolley problem. Would you pull the lever?
- If we answer that we try to announce it loudly to people down the track, the spiritualists reject that idea. They assume we are in a place where they cannot listen to our voice.
- After we answer it (often saying “pull the lever”), they say, “Mediocre people struggle with the two options in front of them. Creative people discover a third answer, such as destroying the trolley or derailing it by placing stones on the tracks. That will save all people.”
Although it looks logical at a glance, I always felt uncomfortable with such teaching. I wanted to say, ‘It is a fraud!’ However, I could not verbalize the logic.
I have finally become able to explain why such teaching is irrational and makes us annoyed. Today, I will explain it.
Three irrationalities
There are three kinds of irrationality in the above case, as follows:
- Bringing up other premises afterwards denies the logic.
- In urgent situations where we must make an instant decision, we can only judge emotionally. We cannot think logically.
- The teacher doesn’t need to build a superior position by making the opponent make a mistake. Correct logic is persuasive enough.
Let’s look at them in detail.
1) Bringing up other premises afterwards
The first contradiction is bringing up other premises afterwards. It denies the whole logic.
When we explain the situation logically, we must state all the premises in advance. It includes the possibility that the trolley can be destroyed and that it can derail by placing a stone. Otherwise, we can make any answer correct.
It is easy to understand when we take it as a mystery story. In mystery stories, the author quietly sets up the hints that can be connected to the case. That later becomes a surprising trick that entertains us.
However, if the author hides those premises, any answer can be correct.
For example, we can assume that the trolley will explode in 1 second. In this case, we don’t have to care about it. There can be another person who can control the trolley. One of the 5 people might be the king of a kingdom, in which his death will cause a worldwide war, and we might be his loyal subordinates. The one person who is alone might have a fatal infectious disease and bring disaster to the world in the future. We can freely create countless additional conditions that influence our judgments.
Stating additional premises after our judgment is just a fraud. It breaks the whole logic. It is an irrational way to make the opponent wrong as long as the opponent cannot explain the logical break. That is the first irrationality.
2) Contradiction of its urgency
The second contradiction is its urgency.
In urgent situations where we must make an instant decision, we can only judge emotionally. We cannot think logically.
This is because logical thinking requires time. The more complex the situation is, the more time it takes to consider the premises.
On the other hand, emotions allow us to judge immediately. They are accumulations of our past logical judgments. Although it cannot consider new factors, it enables us to make a reasonable judgment based on past experiences.
In other words, all we can do in a dire situation that requires instant reaction is to judge emotionally. It is unreasonable to demand logical thinking in that context.
3) Contradiction in purpose and means
The final contradiction is its purpose.
The purpose of using the trolley problem for the spiritualists is to build a superior position. If the teacher can point out the mistakes of others, they can take the upper hand. That gives them authority and credibility.
However, if we are logical, we don’t need to build such a superior position. This is because logic itself is persuasive. Even without authority and titles, a rational explanation easily convinces other logical people.
When creating authority, being more political is more efficient than trying to disguise oneself as logical. In other words, it is just an inferiority complex for those without logical sense. Those spiritualists are choosing indirect, inefficient methods.
Conclusion
That is why spiritual teachers who use the trolley problem are irrational and make us feel uncomfortable.
Although it looks logical at a glance, it is fundamentally contradictory. That confuses logical people.
This logical explanation might help you think more rationally.
Thank you for reading this article. I hope to see you in the next one.
