Philosophical Checkmate

Have you ever heard of the Trolley Problem?

I was introduced to it by a drunken Hungarian guy on a ferryboat many years ago, but that is a separate story. It is a thought experiment, which involves an ethical dilemma, and has been chewed over by philosophers since the 1960s. Half a century of rigorous intellectual debate indicates that there is no clear-cut solution. The basic question is as follows:

A runaway train is hurtling along its tracks. Further along, five people are tied to the tracks, about to be run over and killed. In a nearby signal box, a signalman can divert the train onto different tracks, to which just one person is tied.

What should the signalman do?

a) Divert the train and kill only one person; or

b) Do nothing and allow it to kill five.

Herein lies the dilemma. There are two schools of thought. The consequentialist approach is that the signalman should divert the train, to reduce the number of deaths. The alternative, deontological, view is that purposefully diverting the train, leading to death, would be an immoral action, regardless of its consequences, so it should, therefore, be left alone. In other words, which is worse: passively allowing a disaster to happen; or actively instigating a less serious one? Furthermore, which would be more likely to incur the wrath of others?

The COVID-19 saga has brought into play a variant of this awful ethical problem (Figure 130.1). Perhaps more accurately, it has been government action which has introduced it, by means of the recent lockdown. The question is: given that there is no reason to believe that it will be beneficial to public health, should it be lifted immediately?

Let us apply the two aforesaid approaches:

a) Consequentialist:

The lockdown is lifted immediately. Consequently, the economy recovers faster and more vigorously. This enables better-equipped health services in the longer term and thereby reduces the total number of deaths. However, what if this deliberate act causes a sudden spike in deaths in the short term?

b) Deontological:

The lockdown remains for several months, and, in the short-term, death rate is not increased. However, permanent loss of economic activity leads to a severe reduction in government revenue in the longer term, and thus a lower standard of health provision and a greater total number of deaths ultimately.

Figure 131.1: The COVID-19 ‘trolley’ dilemma

Copyright © 2016 McGeddon CC BY-SA

What should Boris Johnson and his ministers do? End the lockdown and risk x deaths in the short term, or maintain it and passively allow 5x deaths eventually? The prime minister must by now realize that he has unwittingly manoeuvred himself into a philosophical checkmate (Figure 130.2). He will doubtless end the lockdown at what he believes is the optimum moment, to gain the benefits of both the consequentialist and deontological strategies. I fear, though, that he will end up with neither. Besides, what if, eventually, as I strongly suspect, it is proven that lockdown did nothing to prevent deaths at all?

Figure 131.2: The moment every chess player dreads: by the time he realizes his predicament, the game is already lost.

Copyright © 2020 Independent Digital News and Media Ltd

Copyright © 2020 Paul Spradbery