Appeals to Emotion in the Trolley Problem
Appeals to emotion are logical fallacies (flaws in reason) that instead of relying on solid reasoning, rely on getting someone to empathize with a point of view purely based on an emotional basis. This is generally done by exclaiming something along the lines of “Just think of how I feel!” for example, there is no argument there other than emotions carrying the weight of what the right thing to do is. Just because someone feels a certain way about something does not make it right. If a mass murderer feels like what they are doing is right, is it right? According to most theories, no. In some instances, the appeal to emotion fallacy is not so straight forward. I think that the trolley problem posed by Philippa Foot in 1967 and adapted by Judith Jarvis Thompson in 1985 contains an appeal to emotion fallacy.
If you are unfamiliar with the trolley problem, allow me to explain. The trolley problem begins with a trolley which has lost its brakes. Left unchecked, it will (so don’t think about options to save everyone, it’s hypothetical) kill 5 workers who are on the tracks ahead of the trolley. However, you notice there is a lever nearby, which once pulled will drive the trolley onto a separate set of tracks. Crisis diverted right? Wrong. On this second set of tracks, there is another, singular worker who would be killed by your diversion of the trolley. So first question, do you divert the track? In this instance, it is likely, if you haven’t come into contact with the trolley problem before, that the answer would be yes. Save the five by killing the one right? Five peoples lives are worth more than one so it makes sense after all. This is where the problem becomes tricky. The next scenario is similar, but you are on a bridge. The trolley is on a runaway again barreling toward the five workers. However, without panicking and searching for some means to save them, you notice an incredibly, incredibly large person leaning on the ledge of the bridge watching this all go down. You are absolutely guaranteed, in this hypothetical, that the large person, if on the tracks, would absolutely stop the trolley dead in its tracks, killing the large person. So, do you push the large person onto the tracks ensuring the safety of the five? Most would be repelled by this proposition.
The second instance is where I think the appeal to emotion comes in. You see, most of the time, when posed to first year Philosophy students, this question is asked to introduce the ideas of utilitarianism which is all about, as Jeremy Bentham once said “The greatest happiness for the greatest number.” And the second instance, where most would be repelled by the idea of pushing the large person is indicative of deontology, or duty ethics, from Immanuel Kant. The idea being that we respect peoples autonomy and apply universal rules like “do not kill” to particularities. The main problem I have with the trolley problem, at least as it was posed this way to me, was that the second merely relied on us having the guilt of having actually acted upon killing someone. Guilt being the emotion that is being appealed to here.
In essence, my problem with the trolley problem is that pushing the large person would be the right thing to do I think. Utilitarianism doesn’t care about the agent’s (the person pushing the large person) happiness but the happiness of everyone involved. No doubt, if I pushed the large person I would go to prison, and rightly so, I killed someone and that is the law. However, this does not mean I made the wrong decision. It means I accepted my fate in that I had to do the right thing, knowing the consequences. In this example, I and the large person are the least happy (the large person probably the far least) which is of two agents unhappiness. Compare this with the five workers. The five workers survive and their happiness by comparison is assured. Five peoples happiness compared to two. The answer is obvious, or at least I think. I cannot value only my happiness when deciding if I should push the person or not. The right move is to push them, regardless of how I feel about doing it, or the consequent of my own happiness as a result. To not act on it would be acting out of emotion, and to consider that right would be an appeal to emotion fallacy because my reasoning ultimately comes down to how I felt about doing it, not whether it was actually right or not.
This does not mean, however, I am in fact going to push the large person. I know what you’re probably thinking: “Make sure I never stand next to you when this happens!” And I wouldn’t blame you. The thing is, just because something is the right thing to do, does not mean it is the wrong thing to not do it either. To consider things as only right or wrong would be another fallacy: a false dichotomy. You cannot blame someone as being wrong for acting on emotions in a real world example (aside from recourse of their actions as compelled by law). Emotions are incredibly powerful, and in an instance like this, you never did kill anyone, you never ensured the death of the workers. Maybe you tried shouting to the workers to no avail, or just generally call out for help to anyone nearby (if the workers are in the scenario that they are tied up). In other words, I don’t see it as wrong to not push the large person just because the “rightest” thing to do would be to push them, regardless of the pushback and prison and guilt you would feel. Fear not, if you are next to me on the bridge in this unlikely event, I will have failed at doing the rightest thing, but that still doesn’t make it wrong.
