The Trolley Problem: Pull the Lever or Panic?

Ah, the Trolley Problem. A philosophical nightmare where you—an unsuspecting bystander—are suddenly responsible for life-and-death decision-making. A runaway trolley is hurtling toward five people who, for some reason, did not check their surroundings before lounging on the tracks. But wait! There’s a lever! If you pull it, the trolley will switch tracks, sparing the five—but instead, it will barrel into one unlucky soul standing on the alternate track (easy choice, if it's the person who decided to ∑ or i to Mathematics).

So, what do you do? Do you pull the lever and sacrifice one to save many? Or do you stand frozen in moral terror, letting fate take the wheel? First let’s look at how different philosophies would handle this mess:

Different Philosophical Approaches to the Trolley Problem

Utilitarianism: Save the Most People

"Easy choice," says the utilitarian. Pull the lever, save five, and let one person take the unfortunate hit. The logic here is simple: the greatest good for the greatest number. Numbers win—unless, of course, that one person is your partner, a family member, or the only one in the group that has a spare charger for your dying phone ( a stunning example of: psychological egoism).

Deontological Ethics: Don’t Play "God"

Immanuel Kant would be standing next to you, shaking his head. "You must never actively choose to harm someone," he'd say. Sure, five people might perish, but hey—you didn’t personally intervene. If you pull the lever, you are choosing to kill, and that makes you just as morally responsible for the outcome and a murderer. Let fate do its thing.

Virtue Ethics: What Would a Good Person Do?

Aristotle steps in: Are you acting with wisdom, courage, and kindness? … "Great question, Aristotle, but we have approximately three seconds before this trolley makes the decision for us, so let's not attempt to be a smart arse." A virtue ethicist would probably consider character traits over raw numbers—but in those few panicked moments, what even is virtue? It’s not like you have time to question all six people and weigh the options!

Existentialism: You Are Fully Responsible for Your Choice

Sartre would tell you, "There’s no right or wrong answer—only the answer you create." You can’t escape responsibility. Whatever you choose, it shapes who you are. No pressure. Just the existential weight of your entire moral identity hanging on one lever with the clock ticking, I can't even decide on what to order at a bloody restaurant and there I have 15 - minutes before the waiter/ess returns.

Non-Intervention: Stand Very Still

Some argue that if you don’t act, you’re not morally responsible. The trolley was already set in motion. You weren’t the architect of this disaster, so why should you choose to involve yourself? Just stand still, look overly concerned/play dumb (works more often than not), and hope history doesn’t judge you too harshly. :)

My Take: Utilitarian, But with an Emotional Crisis

Personally, I’d opt for the utilitarian approach—saving five feels like the logical move. But let’s be honest: if that one person on the alternate track was my partner/family, suddenly the “easy” decision turns into an emotional catastrophe. Morality is rarely as simple as math, and human instinct complicates everything.

So, what about you? Do you pull the lever, accept responsibility, and save five? Or do you let things play out and hope for the best? Let me know—I promise, there’s no trolley waiting in real life. (I hope.)