In Debate, we’re starting our philosophical Lincoln-Douglas Debate unit by considering Phillipa Foot’s Trolley Problem. Today, I’m adding in a twist to the classic question in order to help us think about the different ways we judge right and wrong.

From our Classroom post for today:

Our trolley is rolling merrily along in the past, well before any workers are on the rails. The engineer has a cool new brake design that will make the train more efficient, getting its customers to their destinations faster and smoother than ever before. His intention in trying out these new brakes is to make life better for everyone. Unfortunately, when he engages them, the trolley brakes malfunction, and it leads to our original trolley dilemma. Did the engineer act morally here? Why or why not?

Here’s one more tricky scenario. Imagine that this trolley is now running away uncontrollably, and will lead to the deaths of the workers. A train robber, intending to steal the money and valuables of everyone onboard, accidentally manages to stop the trolley before anyone dies. Did the train robber act morally here? Why or why not?

---

These two new stories set up a big tension in ethical debates. Does the intention of an action matter, or only the consequence? Philosophers label these deontology or consequentialism — there’s your Jeopardy answer for the day.

I feel like most of our moral decisions are based on the latter. It’s human nature that we make choices based on what outcomes: what’s going to save the most lives? What’s going to benefit people (ourselves or others) the most? The easy moral choice to bring in as an example here is what’s happening now with social distancing. It doesn’t matter if I don’t walk into the grocery store not intending to get other people sick; if I’m ill, and my choice to go out infects someone else, I haven’t acted in a moral way.

But then again, I can’t really discount the intention of someone’s actions, either. Did the guy who licked a bunch of deodorant in Warrenton actually get anyone sick? Probably not, honestly. But was his intention to spook/scare/intimidate/minimize people’s real fears about this situation? Definitely. And that’s not right either.

I feel like I can’t isolate one from the other: it’s important to consider the intention AND the outcome of a choice before deciding whether it’s moral or not. Being able to name those two angles could help make the decision (or the discussion) clearer, though.