Conflicting Philosophy of The Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem is a Ethical dilemma proposed by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. It's basically a riddle that seems simple and is complicated to answer at the same time. Imagine a train is moving at 100kmph on its designated track. 5 Laborers are working on the track and they're not aware of the oncoming train. There's not enough time to communicate this information to loco pilot of the train and not enough time to vacate them from the track. However, you're equipped with a switch that instantly diverts the train onto another track where only one person is working on the track. What would you do? Would you save one person to save 5 people? Or let fate take its course. Think about it for a minute and we will come back to the answer on last part of this. There are many versions of this theory and various answers, polls, movies, YouTube theory videos on this. Scientists are collecting data on various people's answer to understand human psychology which helps in programming AI and defence machines like in Iron Man or such, in future probably, hopefully. One study showed that 90% people picked the answer where it said it's okay to kill one person to save 5 people. And after that, scientists have presented the other version of the problem. In this version, you are standing on the bridge below which the train will be passing through. Beside next to you is a big man, if you push him, that'll stop the train from killing the 5 people working on the track. But on this question, only 10% people said it's okay to kill one person to save 5 people. To put it in perspective, 90% people said it's okay to divert the train track on to the track where only one person is working. While on the question of pushing a person from bridge on to track, only 10% people said it's okay to push a person to save 5 people working on the track. The difference between the two questions is more or less same, killing one person to save 5 people, but the difference of people saying yes 90-10 that is 80%. Because letting one person die seems more OK than killing one. Although it's just the hypothetical situation, the answers will bring in much more questions.

 

I was watching a interview of actress Khushi Ravi where she was asked what will she do if she found a ₹500 and ₹2000 note on ground while coming from work. Now everyone will say ₹500, because no one wants ₹2000 notes for the trouble of exchanging guidelines at bank. Jokes aside, she said she'll pick ₹2000 note and her husband and kid who sat next to her went face palm saying Ayyoo. They said, they'll pick both ₹500 and ₹2000 and I personally thought it was genius, but let's dig deeper. Let's say I am going home from work and I see a ₹2000 note (ignoring ₹2000 note ban type of event) and I pick ₹2000 and went home, would I be considered as a thief? I don't think so, but what I think doesn't matters, it's the law of court that matters. Yes, it'll be consider as stealing, but since I don't know who lost it, and if I just deposit it in any charity, would I gain punya? If not me, someone else will pick it up and move on. Stealing ₹2,000 from someone's pocket is a different story. I asked my friends these questions and only 10% of them said he / she'll leave that on the road and move on. Times are changed, it's 2023, I mean we are morally and ethically broken. It takes me to Climax of Upendra movie, Uppi looks into the mirror and says, "You (U) won't be bothered if a big robbery takes place in neighbour’s house, but if lose ₹1,000 or just ₹500, you'll cry for a week, ದುಡ್ಡು, ಅಯ್ಯೋ ನನ್ನ ದುಡ್ಡು" and such. There are many takeaways from that movie, but I like to highlight wisdom from Arjun Reddy's Ajji, "Pain is personal, let him suffer". Yeah, because for almost half of my career, I worked as a cashier and sometimes I gave excess money and some times less, the ones that got less always came back, but the ones that more, only a few retuned it. By the end of day, if there's difference in amount between cash money and accounts balance, I have to pay from my pocket and that felt bad. Because, as the Ajji said, pain is personal, I will be crying for a week saying, "ದುಡ್ಡು, ಅಯ್ಯೋ ನನ್ನ ದುಡ್ಡು". But I wouldn't hesitate for a second to pick that ₹2000/- fell on the side of the road. Inner voice going be like, "ಆ ಪಾಪದ ಹಣ ಈ ಪಾಪಿ ಹತ್ತಿರ ಇರಲಿ, ಹೋಗ್". If not me, somebody else will pick it and move on with the life. Government of Karnataka has declared free bus fare to all women l, there are many appreciation and opposition to it, and I wouldn't go into the politics of that. I'm not a woman, but let's just say, if I was, or if we all are, are we honest enough to reject the offer and pay for the ticket? Again, it's a theoretical question and the answer would still be same 1/10.

 

Self Appraisal feat Naanu

 

I was at a colleague's wedding and this non FIR case grabbed my attention shared by my friend who working as a police. A non FIR case is a kind of case that's usually solved by police without involving the law. It's not the lawful practice but it is often done at every station to avoid and reduce court fees and time. An example of which is shown in Singam movie, where two brothers file a complaint on each other and Surya, a localite and present police inspector suggests them to withdraw case and live peacefully among them. Not registering a FIR is considered as a serious offense. But in that case, the police gesture brought the two brothers into harmony. Something similar happened at my friend's police station and since it's a non FIR case, there's no way of knowing the story is true or false.  A police friend of mine while was at his station, received a strange encounter of a woman claiming that the funds in her bank accounts has been deducted by bank. The police asked her for the statement and she provided the printed passbook. The 'writer' who is authorised to take written complaint was out for lunch. So, my friend called and asked his banker friend (not me) regarding the transaction. And he said that the transaction of ₹25,000/- was done by mobile banking sent to someone named Shekhar (name changed) and it's mentioned in remarks as Rajeev (name changed). So, while waiting for the writer to arrive, the policeman asked the woman that does she know anybody by the name Shekhar. She said she don't know any person by that name. The policeman further asked her about Rajeev. The woman said it's her son's name. In passbook entry, the policeman observed IMPS transaction with reference number, remarks and time of the transaction which showed 00:35 in it. The policeman deduced that the transaction has been done his son and asked her to enquire with her son without further proceeding with the official enquiry. The woman strongly believed that the transaction wouldn't have done by her son and she was sure if it. In less than 10 minutes the father arrived with his son revealing the complete story from his end. The son said he owed someone money from betting since last month but the mobile banking allowed only ₹25,000/- for one time and to one account at a time per day. The woman asked the policeman to return the passbook and said she’ll resolve the issue at home with father and son involved. That's all about the non FIR case he encountered recently and while we were on the topic they called us up for the photo session and we forgot to continue the conversation.

 

Coming back to the trolley problem, as I have already said, it's both simple and complex at the same time. It's simple because its hypothetical situation and you will not be held accountable for the decisions made in the process and its complex because you are asked to play God, to judge if one life is more valuable than 5 people. In the beginning of this article, I have asked you about your thoughts on the trolley problem. Would you save 5 people which results in letting a single person die in the course of it for greater good? I have asked you to think about it for a minute and now it's time to face off with it. If you said yes, it's okay to let a person die for the sake of 5 people, does that make you a murderer? If yes, how can it be rectified? If no, because you did not kill any person, the train would've killed 5 people anyway and you somehow managed to avoid that by minimising the collateral damage and reduce it to one person. Let's keep the philosophical thoughts of this trolley problem and come to banking aspect of it. On the non FIR case mentioned above, is the bank or banker held accountable for the misuse of funds? Probably no, because the mobile banking in the woman's account would have been activated with proper forms and documentation, so i assume the banker is not liable for the said transaction. With reference to this, i have created a Google form with one question only. It said, "On your way to work, you'll find a ₹500 on the ground. Would you

a) Pick It?

b) Leave It?

The Google form was designed to ask only one question and "not collect e-mail ID name or any data" that reveals identity of the person to avoid invasion of privacy. But I wanted to know how various people think on the subject and shared it with friends & co-workers. The result is as below:

 

Responses from Google Form

 

In the trolley problem, you are asked to pick a side between saving one and five labourers. The first option is easy, you have to divert the track where one labour is working 90% said it's okay to kill one to save five. But on the second iteration, we are asked to push someone from bridge to save five people. When you think about it, it's kinda same that you are letting one person die for the sake of saving five people. But it's not the same, in the second kill, you are deliberately pushing someone off from the bridge, that counts as killing, although end result it same, 5 people are saved and one is dead, the process of it is wrong. It's often depicted in many movies, I'm thinking of Telugu movie Simhadri by SS Rajamouli. In one scene, Bhoomika is on the train; her father is running to catch the train with an important suitcase, which had bomb he wasn't unaware of. Jr NTR chases him, keeps on shouting that there's a bomb in the suitcase and eventually falls. He remembers its okay kill one person to save 10 or to sacrifice oneself for the sale of it", takes out the gun and kills the man. The suitcase then falls on the empty land and thankfully no one was hurt in the bomb blast, but in the process of it, he killed Bhoomika's father to save thousands of people in a train bomb blast. 

 

And in the non FIR Case of the mobile banking, the woman is allowed to file a complaint in case of mis-utilisation of funds in her account; RBI has taken various measures to ensure that. But the problem is a mother won't file a complaint against her own son. If it was a theft or robbery, the case would be different. Just like in the trolley problem, the banker is probably not responsible for the mis-utilisation of funds in her account by her son. The mobile or net banking has been introduced to help customers manage their money 24x7 and in more helpful and easy manner. But there is also disadvantage to it. The police complaint has not been filed so it's not matter of law; it's about ethics of it. I thought about it for a while, about that scene from Simhadri, I mean although Simhadri is tied to principle of saving ten people by killing one, he's also ready to sacrifice himself for saving ten people. I personally don't have that big of moral and ethical obligation to sacrifice myself for the sake of the greater good. That's why I am not an hero, may be an NPC, we all are, I think so, are we in matrix or is this, our life is a avatar of someone playing video game? We never know.

 

To conclude, any and everything in this universe has both advantages and disadvantages. We just can't sit at home fearing road accidents. That's the beauty of life; we fail, learn and grow. Humans weren't made to fly but we landed ourselves on the moon. There's always something new to learn every day. The honour, code, ethics we speak of, is there for some reason. To follow it or not is one's own personal choice. And those choices define us, whether we pick that ₹500 on the ground, would we keep it to ourselves or donate it to charity? Speaking of the trolley problem, there always comes a time when we're forced to decide between two options which are equally bad. Let's just hope that those situations remain hypothetical, that's all on the Conflicting Philosophy of The Trolley Problem. While I typed this in bus, on the way to home, I saw ₹500 on the road, I saw around and nobody was there. What did I do? I'll never tell! Just kidding, there wasn't any ₹500, it's all just hypothetical made up story, or was it not?