In a recent paper published in the Journal of Ethics and Social Philosophy, Guy Crian critiques the “trolley method” of moral philosophy for its unrealistic simplification of moral decision-making, lack of consideration for the complexity and diversity of real-life ethical situations, and potential to mislead about the nature of moral agency and ethical reasoning.
First, the trolley method emphasizes dramatic scenarios that are rare or extreme compared to the everyday ethical decisions that people face. This focus on high-stakes dilemmas, such as choosing between the lives of different individuals, neglects the more common and less dramatic aspects of moral life, such as showing kindness, making personal sacrifices, or engaging in civic duties. By highlighting such exceptional cases, the method distorts the perception of ethics as primarily concerned with life-and-death decisions, overlooking the mundane but pervasive ethical considerations that shape our daily lives and relationships.
Second, the method tends to present moral agents as generic or anonymized figures, ostensibly to make the scenarios universally applicable. However, this approach overlooks the fact that respondents often unconsciously fill in missing details based on their own biases or assumptions, such as imagining the moral agent as a young, able-bodied male. This implicit shaping of the moral agent’s identity excludes a wide range of potential agents from consideration, such as those who are elderly, disabled, or from diverse cultural backgrounds, thereby narrowing the scope of ethical inquiry to a limited set of perspectives.
Third, the critique points out that the trolley method models ethical decision-making as a clear-cut choice between distinct options. Real-life ethical decision-making is often automatic and influenced by factors beyond immediate conscious deliberation. Factors such as cultural background, personal history, psychological state, and even physical environment can subtly influence decisions in ways individuals may not be fully aware of. The critique emphasizes the need for ethical theories to account for these influences, recognizing that ethical behavior is often the result of deeply ingrained habits, societal cues, and situational pressures rather than isolated, deliberate choices.
Crain acknowledges the educational and psychological value of trolley problems but criticizes their dominance in moral philosophy for failing to address the full range of ethical experiences and decisions. The critique calls for a broader, more nuanced approach to ethics that considers the complexity of human life, the diversity of moral agents, and the everyday nature of most ethical decision-making.
The critique, “Three Shortcomings of the Trolley Method of Moral Philosophy”, was authored by Guy Crain.
