Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Of Trolleys and Tanks
New Mount Carmel Center during the FBI assault on the Branch Davidian complex in Waco, TX.
There are five people tied to the tracks of an unstoppable, runaway trolley. Their death is imminent. However, in your hand is a switch. If you flip that switch, then the trolley is diverted down a different track, away from those five people… and down a track onto which one person is tied. Death is certain no matter what you do. Flip that switch and you have actively assented to the death of a fellow human being. Do nothing and you have passively assented to the death of five fellow human beings. What do you do?
The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment that is often introduced in college freshman classes on ethics. Many people are familiar with the problem and its point: There are some situations without fully ethical solutions. One decision is just as ethically questionable as the other, and each decision is ultimately and solely based on the decision maker’s own principles. However, the Trolley Problem suffers as a thought experiment because it lacks context. It is very easy to imagine how one would behave in a no-win situation when that situation remains a safe and detached theoretical. Unfortunately, we no longer have such a luxury.
Never before have I experienced a dilemma which maps so readily to the Trolley Problem as this year’s presidential race. There are only two possible outcomes: Clinton is our next president or Trump is. And individual people, based upon their personal principles, find one or the other outcome to be morally repugnant. In this Trolley Problem, the #NeverTrump position, either through abstaining, writing-in, or voting third party, is that of passively assenting to Clinton, while the #NeverHillary position is that of actively assenting to Trump. As with any Trolley Problem, neither position can claim to be more ethical than the other.
As I have stated before and often, my personal position is #NeverSoros, which currently places me in the #NeverHillary camp. As such, I would like to make an honest and respectful appeal to the people of #NeverTrump and to their principles. In doing so, I must add some context to our shared Trolley Problem.
This particular bit of context must be added because I expect that it hasn’t been added already. The reason I expect so is because the context is pitch dark. It is a source of deep national shame. It is a stain on our history so horrific that few choose to look at it. I doubt that it is taught in our schools. I doubt further that Millennials have even heard of it. We don’t talk about it, because it’s easier. We dismiss those who mention it as fringe, because it’s too unsettling. But it is there. And, God help me, I’m putting it on the table.
Sixteen years is a long time, a long enough time to forget the horror show that was the Clinton regime. It would be easy to mention mundane outrages such as the Clinton’s looting of the White House and their administration’s trashing of it on their way out the door, or even their tacit admission to corruption with their Soprano’s video spoof. But such mundane outrages rise only to the level of vulgar, a word that is often cited in arguments against Trump. But, for all of his bluster and showmanship, for all of his vulgar coarseness, let me remind you of some things that Trump never did.
Donald Trump never served as a high ranking official – a so-called Co-President – in an administration which rolled military tanks on an American civilian population. He never served in an administration which forced a protracted stand-off which ended with a community in ashes and the majority of its population, including the majority of its children, dead. He never served in an administration which did all this and then claimed that it was done to protect those very same children. He never served in an administration in which, afterward, no one, to my knowledge, was held to account for one of the worst law enforcement tactical blunders in American history. He never served in an administration which, instead of granting due process to the most deplorable of Americans, granted overwhelming, terrifying, military force.
Hillary Clinton did.
We treat Islamic terrorists better.
In a recent email leaked by Wikileaks, John Podesta claimed that Hillary Clinton, “has begun to hate everyday Americans.” Hillary herself has called Trump supporters “deplorable” and “irredeemable.” These everyday Americans, these deplorables and irredeemables are your neighbors, your friends, your family, and given Hillary’s “vast right-wing conspiracy” rhetoric, maybe even you yourself in the #NeverTrump camp.
The 2016 election trolley can not be stopped from rolling. But, #NeverTrump-ers, perhaps something a great deal more terrifying can be. Consult your principles. I will respect your choice. The switch is in your hands.
Published in General
I get what you’re saying. I really do. But people talk stupid smack all the time. It’s kind of like the Trolley Problem, what you think you’ll do when the actual context is removed is often very different from what you’ll actually do when presented with the real horror of the choice.
Curt, thank you for reading. As I mentioned in the piece – people often will answer the Trolley Problem in an idealistic fashion, because it is removed from context. Once that context is provided, i.e. as election day approaches, and the harsh reality of the decision becomes apparent, I think some people might reconsider their original position and still stay consistent to their principles.
I’m glad you have found an answer that you are comfortable with. Others come to another conclusion. If, in fact, you are a Utilitarian or a Deontologist, then yes, flipping the switch is the more ethical solution. However, Aristotelians and people who don’t know what any of these terms mean might and often do come to another conclusion.
Regardless, each person makes their individual decision based on their own person principals. Directly flipping the switch or indirectly influencing the switch does not matter to the individual’s decision.
A, I’ve already addressed Curt and in a civil tone. Both sides are acting on their personal principles.
FWIW, if you modify the Trolley problem so the train is headed towards five people and the only way to stop the train before it kills those five people is to push an innocent person off a bridge that crosses the tracks, most people would not push the person even though outcome is identical (one person dies to save five people). There is something about the active involvement of physically pushing someone to their death that repels people in a way that throwing a rail switch doesn’t.
If we want to compare the trolley analogy to this election, a lot of people understandably can’t give their vote to someone they think will be a horrible president just because the other person is slightly worse. To put it in context, it isn’t killing one person to save 5, it is blowing up a bridge killing 150 people to save 151 people (or, as some people believe, 149 people).
LivingTheHighLife, I’ve already addressed both Curt and A-Squared and in a civil tone. Both sides are acting on their personal principles.
With respect, Marion, that’s your opinion. Hillary has a track record.
Obama has never gotten over teasing about the size of his ears. No nukes were launched.
I was more civil than was deserved. Is sarcasm not even allowed in response to blatant insults?
This is exactly correct. I’m starting to believe that this modern era of unease and distrust of our government began with how they did not hold anyone accountable for Waco.
When you are in the voting booth, the decision is yours alone. You are either passively or actively assenting.
As to your follow up question: if it’s pointless, as you assert, then why shouldn’t they?
Susan, with respect, again, this is your opinion. Hillary has a track record.
I never said or implied any insult. Merely pointing out that while the Nevers preen on about how vulgar he is (and he truly is) Hillary smiles and nods with approval as the Oval Office looks more and more like it’s soon to be hers, and the Nevers aren’t helping. I still believe there are a few folks that are having a tough time deciding between two terrible choices, and time spent reaching out to Nevers is literally time wasted.
Thank for reading, Jim.
No doubt. However, why a church would need heavy arms is beyond me.
If this had been a Mosque I think people’s attitudes would be a bit more circumspect.
Tory, with respect, this is intentional sophistry. Gary Johnson is nothing more than a protest candidate. He has zero chance of winning.
I needed a laugh. Thanks.
Not just slightly worse, and this is the point, but was involved at a high level in an administration which rolled military tanks on an American civilian population. “Slightly worse” doesn’t come close to describing the difference.
A reply to my comment is undeserving of civility? I suppose my statement about the Nevers’s principals could be considered sarcasm, though I was thinking more along the line or moral preening. Still, if nothing else I will always try to remain civil here.
Please trust that I monitor my threads and will address any insults. I apologize that you were insulted.
Thank you for clarifying. “Preen” is a bit loaded though. I certainly wouldn’t care for someone to say that I was preening.
I’m sorry you’ve had a hard time reaching out. I’m not there yet.
I agree with all of your points. Trust me, I’m not acting as special pleader for the Davidians, rather for due process in general.
I want to thank you all for commenting on my thread. Unfortunately, I’m now off to work and will not be back until 1am MT.
Be respectful, build bridges. Out.
I realize that as a neverTrump’er, I’m guilty by association of the foolhardy efforts post-primary to remove Trump from the ballot. I’ve commented multiple times that the Bill Kristol efforts at the convention were a colossal waste of time.
However, the blanket charges against Nevers are taken personally. If you or anyone can find any example where I’ve claimed some moral superiority for refusing to vote for Trump, I’ll give you $10,000. It can’t be found.
I frankly don’t care why or how anyone choses to vote or not vote. My decision was personal, it’s rock solid, and the ongoing debates and insults that continue to fly on just about every thread on this site are boring, tedious and repetitive. The only reprieve – for me personally – to this miserable election season is through humor, which is why I responded how I did.
Hopefully this reply passed the civility test.
It’s also funny how often people are confused by the word NEVER. If you can change our minds, then never was never never.
I’m going after the almost never crowd
Well, most people do philosophy wrong by simply picking a superficially plausible set of axioms and then biting every bullet that results. The solution to the trolley problem follows obviously from our intuition that, all else being equal, you should do the thing that saves more lives.
My question is always the same: who’s on the tracks and who’s on the trolley?
Man, do I get looks.
This is the core difference. I’ve said repeatedly that I think Clinton will cause more harm to the country in the short run but Trump will cause more harm to the country in the long run. If anything over the last month (and having nothing to do with the released tape or allegations of improper behavior), the level of harm I think Trump will cause in both the short run and the long run has increased tremendously.
If you want to focus on rolling tanks, I honestly think Trump is more likely to roll tanks against US citizens than Hillary is. You can disagree, but I sincerely believe that.
Trump ran for months on promising to forcibly deport millions of people from this country in a very short time frame, which would have required a massive violation of privacy and would inevitably have involved hundreds of no-knock raids on American citizens suspected of being or harboring illegal immigrants. I’m decidedly not a fan of Hillary “Let them all vote” strategy, but if your concern is “rolling tanks” it seems obvious to me that Trump will be quicker to pull that trigger than Hillary.
But, reasonable people can differ.