In the previous article (this article), I introduced a thinking experiment called the trolley problem. Since it is a suitable topic for philosophical thinking, let’s talk about it with my philosophy.
How to judge things rationally
Sometimes, we want to know the reasoning behind the behavior of logical people.
If we are logical, appropriate reasoning can lead to an easier life. We can learn it with fun and apply it in various situations.
In other words, when we feel it is difficult to live, we are engaging in activities with low efficiency. We misunderstand the effective way of life.
That is why we want to learn the fundamental reasoning of logical people.
However, we sometimes don’t have such an opportunity.
Today, I will introduce an example of how I judge the trolley problem. This perspective might help you be more rational.
The trolley problem
The trolley problem is a subject that gives us a dilemma. Although it was originally from ethics, it is more suitable for triggering philosophical thinking.
It is a question of how we judge when we are in the following situation. (I added a rule in the last item.)
- 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?
- There is no third solution.
Try to build your own logic based on your philosophy. In other words, we have to consider how to handle the inevitable feeling of guilt.
A question with malice
My current answer is this: I don’t mind either way. If the situation demanded an immediate decision, I would pull the lever. However, if I had time to think, I would let it go or decide based on my mood.
This trolley problem is constructed with malice as a premise. We have to face a negative feeling of guilt because we must choose at least one to kill innocent people. It is as if the creator of this question says, ‘You are a sinner, no matter which you choose.’ It is an irrational claim.
This irrational accusation is the same as the circumstances we had in our childhood. Our parents and surroundings might have treated us as guilty. We have to develop our rationality to overcome that absurdity. That frees us from blaming ourselves and judging based only on past emotions.
The following logic is flawed: someone is a sinner because they are sacrificing others. It goes against the laws of nature. They value human laws more than natural laws. That makes them arrogant.
Considering the laws of nature
In the laws of nature, sacrificing others is natural, not guilt. For example, life survives by eating others. We eat fish, fish feed on plankton, and plankton consume components of life. Blaming making sacrifices means denying all of life, including animals, birds, fish, insects, plants, and bacteria.
Comparing the kind of sacrifice is also pointless. It is just a difference in survival strategy. We cannot say whether eating only vegetables is superior to eating meat. Lions evolved to eat meat, cows chose plants, crows are omnivorous, and plants obtain nutrients from the soil. Denying a strategy of life is equivalent to refusing these lives.
Similarly, comparing the amount of sacrifice is pointless as well. A plant that consumes a lot of water doesn’t mean it is inferior to other plants. They are based on their survival strategy.
That is why we often feel that peace advocates are liars. They claim to save lives while consuming countless lives. There are over a million bacteria on the surface of a single fruit. While they are committing genocide every day, they believe they are saints who protect life. They cannot imagine the position of the bacteria. They may never consider bacteria to be life.
Ironically, such people criticize those who wage war for not considering the position of weak lives. In other words, both those who make wars and pacifists are of the same kind. They are unaware of the influences that affect their survival activities. They arbitrarily decide the standards of impact on other lives and impose them on others.
That inconsistency makes logical people feel uncomfortable.
Discerning unreasonable questions
Let’s return the focus to the trolley problem. That awareness allows us to think rationally.
We can realize that it is an irrational question.
Rationally speaking, why did the trolley go out of control? Should not the problem be the responsibility of the person who managed the trolley? It doesn’t make sense that we bear all the fault. However, that question makes us feel that only we are responsible.
If we are rational, we can confront more fundamental issues. Why does society have to use a trolley? Why do humans use technology? Why do some animals have sociality? Who takes responsibility for them?
That tells us there is no answer. We may bear some responsibility, but we also might not have to take any at all. In other words, we never know whether we are guilty or not. It is unreasonable to continue to think of it.
On the other hand, if we think we can decide based on our survival strategy, we can get a reasonable and feasible answer. Every life lives based on its strategy.
People sometimes use unreasonable logic to confuse others. Such irrational, convenient logic allows them to manipulate people who lack rationality easily. That is beneficial for them. That is their strategy.
This perspective provides us with an answerable, rational conclusion: decide based on rationality. That allows us to avoid the others’ malicious intents and live more naturally.
Conclusion
That is why my answer to the trolley problem is I don’t mind either way.
People sometimes use unreasonable logic to confuse others.
If we think we can decide based on our survival strategy, we can get a reasonable, feasible answer.
This perspective might help you be more rational.
Thank you for reading this article. I hope to see you in the next one.
