Skip to content 
The dilemma isn’t inherently problematic, but becomes one when juxtaposed with varied scenarios.
Consider driving a trolley car: stay on course, ten die; switch tracks, one dies. The choice seems clear, though in reality, it’s a harrowing decision.
Now, you’re a bystander. The trolley will kill ten people, but pushing a large man onto the tracks saves them. Many who’d switch tracks hesitate here, despite the same life count, suggesting perceived moral differences.
Another scenario involves a sheriff facing a moral quandary: execute an innocent man or risk ten lives in a riot. Again, the decision contrasts with the trolley problem, questioning the moral equivalence in different contexts.
Elizabeth Anscombe’s example with a warplane poses a similar dilemma: unintentionally killing one to save ten versus a direct action with the same outcome. Her argument challenges the notion of ‘intention’ in moral decisions.
Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson adapted these scenarios, highlighting the ethical complexities. Bernard Williams used the sheriff example to critique utilitarianism, emphasizing how different roles demand different moral considerations.
Steven Pinker suggests psychology offers insights into our responses to these dilemmas, focusing on emotional reactions over utilitarian calculations. But, as Williams argues, the real question is when to rely on calculations and when to consider factors like integrity.
Ultimately, the original trolley problem is straightforward, serving as a baseline for exploring moral complexities in seemingly equivalent situations.
