Michael Schur's Answer to "The Trolley Problem" (from "The Good Place")

Summary

In this discussion of the trolley problem, Mike Schur explores the moral complexities of choosing to pull the lever to save five lives at the cost of one. He critiques simplistic utilitarian reasoning, emphasizing the importance of personal integrity and a broader philosophical approach. By integrating perspectives from utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and contractualism, Schur argues that the decision to pull the lever is ethically sound, rooted in a collective moral framework rather than mere numbers. His insights highlight the nuanced nature of ethical decision-making and the need to consider various philosophical viewpoints.

Takeaways

• 😀 The trolley problem is a thought experiment that challenges ethical reasoning.
• 🤔 Many philosophers use 'cop-outs' to avoid direct answers, which can be frustrating.
• 🛤️ In the basic trolley problem, one must choose between sacrificing one life to save five.
• 🧮 Most people tend to pull the lever to save five lives, believing it's the better outcome.
• 🔍 Mike Schur argues that the reasoning behind pulling the lever is complex and multi-faceted.
• ⚖️ He emphasizes the importance of integrating various philosophical schools of thought in moral decision-making.
• 📜 Utilitarianism suggests prioritizing actions that save the most lives.
• 👥 Kantian ethics supports sparing innocent lives whenever possible as a universal maxim.
• 🤝 Contractualism involves agreeing on rules that maximize safety for everyone involved.
• 💡 Schur concludes that the decision to pull the lever should reflect one's integrity and broader ethical beliefs.

Q & A

What is the trolley problem?

The trolley problem is a philosophical thought experiment that poses a moral dilemma about whether to pull a lever to redirect a runaway trolley, resulting in one person dying instead of five.

Why does the speaker believe the trolley problem is significant?

The speaker believes the trolley problem effectively dissects different moral philosophies and helps examine one's own values and integrity.

What is the typical response to the trolley problem?

Most people respond by saying they would pull the lever to save five lives at the cost of one, as they view five deaths as worse than one.

What critique does the speaker offer about the common justification for pulling the lever?

The speaker critiques the justification by stating that focusing solely on numbers can distract from personal integrity and ethical principles.

How does the speaker integrate various philosophical approaches into their reasoning?

The speaker suggests that the decision to pull the lever aligns with multiple philosophical views, including utilitarianism, Kantian ethics, and contractualism.

What role does personal integrity play in the speaker's argument?

The speaker emphasizes that personal integrity and one's own moral framework are essential in evaluating the trolley problem, rather than just numerical outcomes.

How does the speaker view the relationship between different philosophical schools of thought?

The speaker believes that filtering the decision through various philosophical perspectives leads to the same conclusion about pulling the lever, reinforcing its validity.

What does the speaker mean by 'contractualism' in the context of the trolley problem?

Contractualism refers to the idea that moral rules are based on agreements made among individuals, suggesting that a consensus to save as many lives as possible would be a widely accepted rule.

What does the speaker imply about the consequences of only using one philosophical approach?

The speaker implies that relying solely on one philosophical perspective can lead to problematic conclusions, whereas a multifaceted approach provides a more robust understanding.

What conclusion does the speaker ultimately reach about pulling the lever?

The speaker concludes that pulling the lever is the right action, but the justification for this choice is complex and requires a blend of various ethical considerations.