The trolley problem is often introduced in classrooms as if it were a puzzle designed to tease the mind of students. A runaway trolley threatens five people tied to the track, and you have the power to pull a lever and divert it, sacrificing one instead of five. It seems like a game of arithmetic morality. Yet the real history of this problem is much more serious. It was born in the 1960s, in the debates between two philosophers, Philippa Foot and Elizabeth Anscombe, about the moral status of abortion.
Foot wanted to clarify how we can talk about killing and letting die, and whether it is always wrong to intend death even if some greater good might result. Anscombe, drawing on her Catholic convictions, insisted that abortion was never permissible, since it was nothing less than the intentional killing of innocent life. Foot, more willing to question absolutes, wondered if there are cases where redirecting harm could be justified. The trolley scenario was her way of testing such cases without inflaming religious or political disputes directly.
So the thought experiment that now fills psychology textbooks and popular ethics books began as a way of clarifying one of the most painful dilemmas humans face. Abortion was the original trolley. The lever was a metaphor for intervention. The tracks stood for the future paths of lives, both taken and preserved. From the beginning, the problem has never been a simple riddle, but a reflection of our deepest conflicts about life and death.
Numbers and the Dehumanization of Life
In its standard form, the trolley problem tempts us to count. Five is greater than one, so saving five seems better than saving one. This utilitarian reasoning is powerful because it appears objective. Yet it immediately raises unease. To treat five lives as more valuable simply because of their number is to reduce human beings to quantities. John Rawls and Immanuel Kant both argued against this reduction. For them, each person is not a unit of utility but a being with dignity. To sum lives as if they were coins or stones is already to commit a dehumanizing act.
The moral discomfort arises because we know that people are not interchangeable. Each one has relationships, memories, and an inner world. To say that five outweighs one may be mathematically true, but it is morally blunt. The trolley problem shows us the danger of counting. If we only calculate, we may save more lives, but in the process we risk forgetting that every life is immeasurable in its worth.
This is not merely theoretical. In moments of war or crisis, leaders often speak of “acceptable losses.” The phrase itself chills us, because it reduces people to numbers in a ledger. The trolley invites us to ask whether saving more always means doing good, or whether there are acts of saving that themselves cost us something essential.
Intention and the Principle of Double Effect
The most famous variation of the trolley problem places us not beside the track but on a bridge. A fat man stands near us. If we push him, his body will stop the trolley, saving five others below. The numbers are the same, but our intuition changes completely. Few are willing to push him. Why? Because in this case his death is not a side effect but the very means of saving the five.
Thomas Aquinas offered a principle centuries earlier that helps explain this difference. He argued that some acts may have two effects, one good and one bad. An act may be permissible if the bad effect is not intended, even if foreseen, and if the good effect outweighs it. Pulling the lever is like this: we foresee that one will die, but we intend to divert the trolley to save the five. Pushing the man, however, is different. His death is the very means by which the saving occurs. Our intention is not simply to divert but to kill, and that shifts the moral meaning entirely.
This distinction is at the heart of abortion debates. If an abortion is performed because the mother’s life is directly threatened, defenders may argue that the intention is to save her, with the embryo’s death as a tragic side effect. Opponents respond that the act directly ends a life and is therefore impermissible. The trolley helps us see how intention reshapes the moral landscape, even when the numbers look the same.
Passive Rules and Active Duties
There is also a difference between rules that forbid and duties that command. “Do not kill” is a passive prohibition. To obey it, one need only refrain from certain acts. It is relatively easy to keep, but if broken it carries an unbearable sense of guilt. Killing once violates a sacred line.
“Love your enemies” or “save others,” on the other hand, are active duties. They call us to extraordinary acts, but when we fail, the guilt is strangely lighter. Few people collapse in shame because they have not loved their enemies today. The weight of omission feels softer than the weight of commission.
The trolley scenario exposes this divide. Pulling the lever feels like breaking the passive rule against killing. Not pulling feels like failing the active duty to save. Our psychology treats the first as guiltier, even though the result is worse in terms of numbers. Abortion again fits here. For those who see it as breaking the prohibition against killing, it is an unthinkable act. For those who see it as an attempt to fulfill the duty of saving the mother’s life or autonomy, it is less about guilt than about tragic necessity.
Love, Proximity, and Partiality
Another limitation of the trolley problem is its abstraction. It presents faceless strangers. Yet in real life, we rarely face decisions about anonymous lives. If the one on the track were your child, and the five were strangers, most parents would save the child without hesitation. Love trumps arithmetic.
This raises a deep paradox. Ethical theories often ask us to be impartial, to treat every person as equal. But human life is lived through partiality. We are bound to those we love. It is not inhuman to save one beloved instead of five strangers. It is profoundly human. The tension between impartial justice and partial love is one of the oldest in moral thought.
Moreover, our psychology reveals a disturbing truth. We can press a button that launches a missile, killing many we will never see, but we cannot stab someone we love. Distance allows abstraction, intimacy makes killing unthinkable. This gradation shows that morality is not lived in numbers alone but in bonds of closeness.
Abortion as a Concrete Trolley
Abortion is perhaps the clearest real-world trolley. A woman faces a pregnancy she did not plan. She may not want to be a mother. She may have conceived through violence. Her health may be in danger. Or the fetus may have severe conditions that guarantee suffering if brought to term. Each scenario confronts her, her family, and her doctors with the same question: what counts as saving, and what counts as killing?
Some argue that life begins at conception and that abortion is therefore always killing. Others argue that while the embryo is biologically alive, personhood is not present in the early stages. The line is contested: conception, heartbeat, viability outside the womb, or birth itself. Unlike the clean numbers of the trolley problem, abortion forces us to confront biological and emotional realities. The embryo is not just a stranger on the track but a life inside a mother, tied to her body and her future.
The decision also reflects the layers of moral weight already mentioned. Parents may feel differently about a child known to be severely disabled than about a healthy one. They may feel differently about a pregnancy from love than from violence. Each context changes the meaning of action, even though the biological facts remain. The trolley becomes not an abstract track but the womb itself, where paths of life and death are chosen.
Modern Variations of the Dilemma
The logic of the trolley problem has expanded into many modern contexts. Doctors in emergency rooms must decide who to treat first when resources are limited. Surgeons consider whether to sacrifice one organ to save many. Military commanders weigh collateral damage. Drone pilots sit thousands of miles away, pressing buttons that decide lives. Engineers of self-driving cars debate how vehicles should react in unavoidable crashes.
Each is a variation of the trolley. The arithmetic of lives saved is weighed against the dignity of individuals. Intention, distance, and partiality all play their roles. Abortion remains one of the most enduring and painful versions, because it involves not only strangers but intimate bonds, not only abstract numbers but the deepest ties of family and identity.
Between Impartial Justice and Partial Love
The trolley problem and the abortion debate both reveal the same tension. On the one hand, justice demands impartiality. Every life is to be valued equally. On the other hand, love is necessarily partial. We save those who are ours, even when reason tells us that more lives could be saved elsewhere. Neither side can be fully denied. To live morally is to live with both.
Philosophers have often tried to solve this conflict with rules, but perhaps the better response is to acknowledge the tension as permanent. We cannot eliminate the partiality of love without dehumanizing ourselves. We cannot abandon the aspiration to justice without risking cruelty. The space between these poles is where human ethics takes place.
Living With Unresolvable Tension
The trolley problem began as a way to think about abortion, and it has grown into a symbol of all moral dilemmas where saving and killing overlap. It shows us that numbers alone do not settle questions of value. It shows us that intention matters, that prohibitions weigh differently than duties, that love complicates impartiality, and that biology does not always yield to clean categories.
Neither the lever nor the bridge, neither the womb nor the battlefield, offer clear answers. What they offer is the recognition that being human is to make choices under weight, where guilt and love intertwine. We cannot escape the fact that to save some is to lose others, and that every act carries both burden and grace. To live with this tension, without pretending it can be erased, may be the deepest lesson hidden in the riddle of the trolley.
Image: Pixabay
Tom’s Blog 