An updated Trolley Problem. A moral dilemma for Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times.

In this posting, I present a version of the classic "trolley problem" moral dilemma -- updated specially for Nicholas Kristof to think about.

Trolley-Problem moral dilemma: 2023 version

*****

A two-car trolley is coming down a set of tracks. In the first car are 8 men with a variety of weapons of war. In the second car are several families. Earlier, the trolley passed a large group of unarmed innocent young adults listening to music along with some families with young children and babies. When the trolley reached that group of people, the men in the first car stopped the trolley and proceeded to rape, torture, execute and burn alive as many of the people as they could.

Further up the track is another similar group of innocent people, and when the trolley reaches them, the men will rape, torture and execute as many of those people as they can also.

There is, however, a man who happens to be beside the track and he is aware of what has happened and what will happen if nothing is done to stop the first trolley car from reaching the second group of innocent people. He has a switch that he can push which will cause the trolley to derail in such a way that it will likely kill everyone in the first car, and will also harm some of those in the second car and might even kill a few of them. The man was able to warn those in the second car about the possible derailment – telling them to uncouple their car from the first one before the derailment can take place. The men in the first car, however, have prevented those in the second from uncoupling the cars, and instead, pulled some of those from the second car into the first car —placing them at the very front of the first car so that they will be the first to die if the derailment occurs.

******

Mr Kristof – the man will only derail the trolley if you tell him to. What do you decide he should do?

A. Push the switch to cause the derailment

or

B. Nothing — because the lives of those in the second car are just as worthy as those of the people who will be tortured and killed if nothing is done, and, after all, the ones who were already tortured and killed cannot be brought back to life.

[Mr. Kristof]. “I choose option B of course.”

OK Mr Kristof – now that you have chosen option B (which we know would be your choice given what you have written in your column) – here is a slightly revised version of the above.

In THIS version, Mr. Kristof, everything is the same, except YOU are the one who can push the switch, and the people in the second group – who will be raped and tortured and executed and burned alive if you do nothing – are all members of your extended family. NOW do you still choose B?

*************

The headline of Mr. Kristof’s column, and the final line of the column are the same: “We must not kill Gazan children to try to protect Israeli children.” Shamefully absent from the column is any mention by Mr. Kristof of the hostages taken by Hamas. Shamefully absent from the column is any description by Mr. Kristof of what he thinks it would be moral for Israel to actually do to protect Israelis from being tortured and executed by Hamas terrorists. Indeed, he has the unmitigated chutzpah to claim that it is “moral myopia” to believe that the deliberate torture and rape and execution of innocent civilians is worse than the unintended causing of harm to civilians as part of an effort to protect one’s citizens from terrorist attacks. Mr. Kristof — it is YOUR moral compass that is in serious need of readjustment, and the place to start is by listening to the brilliantly clear analysis by Sam Harris of the “Sin of moral equivalence”. Please — listen, and then write another column explaining why Sam Harris is wrong.