The Layout of the Apartment
July 23, 2007 | permalink
I heard an NPR radio show the other day, and they were talking about morality. One of the things they talked about was the 'trolley test,' which goes like this:
A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are 5 people who will be run down. Fortunately, you can flip a switch which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person who will be run down on that track. Should you flip the switch?
Most people think that the best course of action is to flip the switch under these circumstances; one person is killed, but five are saved. But check out this variation:
As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a weight onto the switch. The only thing on the bridge with you that you could push over the side is another person. So, the only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?
Most people here say no, that they couldn't, even though the result is the same. Your actions would end one person's life but save five in both cases. So why is it different? What do you think it is that makes people act this way or that in a given situation? What is it in them that makes an act acceptable in one set of circumstances, while at another time the very same act is unthinkable?
I suppose I answer my own question there, don't I? It is the circumstances we find ourselves in that make something okay now and not then (or vice versa). Each moment, I think, brings it's own baseline that we must judge our possible actions against. In the examples above, the difference is in the perception of who is killing the unlucky sixth person- you or the train.
If it is true that each unique moment and set of circumstances serve as a base for us to make our decisions, it follows that there are no absolutes in our behavior, no absolute right answer. No one is always honest or always deceitful, no one is always generous or always selfish, and no one is always brave or always a coward. People may, by their upbringing or personality, be more disposed towards one thing or another, but the circumstances of the moment, and how we perceive them, play a big role in why we chose to do or think or say the things that we do, and how we feel about them later.
My Ex-Wife wanted everything to be black and white. She constantly held herself and others to impossible standards of behavior. And what's more, she was rarely able to separate how she felt about a person from how she felt about their actions. It was very hard for her to see the distinction, and to say, 'I like you, but not what you are doing right now.' It was all or nothing for her. Anyone who fell short (which was nearly everyone, eventually) was likely to be written off, and this caused her a lot of unhappiness and loneliness. To her credit, she was able to approach nearly everyone with an open and trusting attitude, at least at first. She believed in the black and white world, and wanted people to be worthy of her expectations.
I see the world a lot differently than she did. In the first place, as I am sure you know, I have a lot more trouble than that being open and trusting to people, especially at first. But the big difference is that I don't think you can divide the world up into black and white like that. To my mind, there are an infinite number of shades of grey, and everything must by necessity be judged in relation to other things, and not in a vacuum. I'm not saying this is any better, mind you; this is my opinion, and the way I see the world. I can see that not everyone can or will or wants to see things this way.
Which I think is simultaneously the big advantage and disadvantage to my way of thinking. When my Ex-Wife was in an argument, it was pretty much her way or the highway. She was sure was in the right, without question. It made her quite formidable. I, on the other hand, have no problem seeing things from another's point of view, for the most part; it makes me more compassionate, I think, but also less certain of the correctness of my own position*. If I am in an argument, a lot of the time I can see the other person's position so clearly that it makes it difficult for me to stay angry, or sometimes to even hold my ground. It's hard to sit in judgment on someone and truly believe that they should have done this or shouldn't have done that when you can imagine the circumstances that brought them to that particular junction.
I suppose that's why I will never make it as a fundamentalist preacher.
What do you think, Gentle Readers? Are there absolutes in the world? Or is it all shades of grey?
tokyo subway clock was the last entry.
You Can Do Magic is the next entry.
6 Comments
Leave a comment
See the Comment Policy page for more details.
I think it is all shades of gray, but I can't say I always behave that way. I have a hard time separating how I feel about someone's actions from how I feel about them. Unless they are in the I-would-jump-in-front-of-a-speeding-bus(trolley)-for-them
column. Otherwise I think I am a bit too unforgiving. Though I try my best to talk myself out of it.
i don't think there is such a thing as black OR white. just really dark or light gray.
i don't think there is such a thing as black OR white. just really dark or light gray.
turtalia- Well, of course the 'Jump in front of a trolley for them' friends have a lot of leeway. And I think that I am a bit too forgiving, most of the time.
kelsi- I agree.
kelsi- I agree.
now i look like a really vehement asshole, or someone who can't use a computer. either way - not so hot.
anyway. i've been thinking about the latter version of the trolley problem (pushing someone off the bridge) and isn't the best thing to do to jump? then you don't kill anyone else and you're a hero.
great. now i need an ethicist to answer this for me.
I think there IS black and there IS white, but it is very hard to find any action that falls squarely into one or the other (other than maybe raping children, or laying down your life to save someone else). I think it is IMPOSSIBLE to find a person who is wholly bad or good. (Have you ever heard the saying, "Even Hitler loved dogs"?)
I, too, see other people's points of view when I argue. I think it's vital to see the difference between an issue and a person, even when it's the difference between the sin and the sinner, even when it's something that makes you angry. You can disagree with someone while still seeing their point of view - it helps, in an argument, to be able to tell someone you see their point, to articulate the strengths of their position, and THEN to tell them why you still don't agree. They are more likely to listen to you if they see that you understand their position.
Some people, though, insist on taking everything personally. (Even stupid things like politics - how can someone's take on economic policy possibly reflect on their virtues as a human being?) Those people are just making themselves unhappy. The stupidest thing smart people do is assume people who disagree with them are stupid, and one of the worst things good people do is assume people who disagree with them are bad.