The Trolley Problem - Quareness Series 204th "Lecture".
Imagine a situation where you're driving a train heading straight for 5 people lying on the track but you could divert to a side track with just 1 person thereon. Your dilemma (deriving from how the problem is presented) is whether to divert and thereby kill just 1 rather than 5 people...and in doing so effectively murder that 1 person. Given that there are two "urgent" options for an adverse outcome here and the driver is seemingly being asked to choose whether to instigate an action that can save a few(5) at the expense of a fewer(1), this trolley problem is far from straightforward. Rather what it "crystallises" is a kind of animalistic group survival instinct to justify an intervention for "the greater good" when it comes to counting the bodies.
However, what if the problem in fact presents a false dichotomy? What if it's possible to save all of the people involved by say derailing/stopping the train in time? Looked at through this slightly wider lens we might twig that the limited options as originally posed can appeal to an inhumane logic in order to encourage acceptance of the notion that it's ethical to sacrifice a person's human rights (in this case not to be deliberately harmed) for "the greater good". Behold the playbook of all totalitarian-minded regimes in seeking to con their populations and failing to declare who'd be in charge of deciding what the greater good is.
With today's power of persuasion wielded by mass communication technologies and the dominance of economic and political philosophies that encourage overconsumption and undervaluation of individuality, a scientific elite is more likely to acquire authoritarian power relying on their special expertise to rule without meaningful consent. They'd also be likely to justify this state of affairs with claims of knowing what is best for society. We could then witness reality being manipulated (e.g. through propaganda) by only allowing "facts" that support the rulers' agenda to be heard/seen and making dissenting views seem irrational when opposed by "scientific arguments" (sound familiar?).
Freedom could become increasingly difficult to uphold against any temptation for planners and conditioners to redesign humans if/when science gets to overreach morality without self-awareness or restraint.
Ultimately "the greater good" is a utilitarian concept urging us to throw away universal ethics in preference for the collective over the individual...a fundamental aspect of totalitarianism. And unless such insidious ideas are fundamentally rejected, the same level of atrocity that has afflicted every totalitarian regime in history may likely recur.
Every totalitarian society seeks absolute control of the individual in favour of the collective. And this is despite the reality that every human on the planet is uniquely different, making equality of outcome (as opposed to equality of opportunity) an inherent impossibility. Any attempt to "second guess" this reality inevitably leads societies toward absolute control by decision-making elites with a working goal of homogeneity and eradication of those unable or unwilling to submit. "Deprive those that might be a drain on society and craft the remainder in our desired image" (sound familiar?).
Sean.
Dean of Quareness.
April, 2024.