The Trolley Problem, FSD Mode, & ATOO

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics in which in a fictional scenario an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person. The term is often used more loosely with regard to any choice that seemingly has a trade-off between what is good and what sacrifices are “acceptable,” if at all. English philosopher Philippa Foot introduced this version of the trolley problem in 1967, but philosopher Judith Thompson of MIT coined the term Trolley Problem (Merriam Webster.com/wordplay).

Two things: I agree with a British Philosopher who died at age 99 in 2019: “The trolley problem is just one more depressing example of academic philosophers’ obsession with concentrating on selected, artificial examples so as to dodge the stress of looking at real issues.”  Mary Midgley said this, and it matters that it was a woman who made this observation because the area of Trolley Problems is particularly attractive to female philosophers.

I came across this area of research/philosophy in the book  21 Lessons for the 21st Century by Yuval Noah Harai a self-professed gay man living in Israel. In this book he references a 2015 auto industry study where people were offered the choice of self-driving cars that would be altruistic, solve the Trolley Problem by preserving the greatest number of lives, or cars that would be egotistic, solve the problem by always preserving the driver’s life. The potential consumers participating in this study all thought the altruistic self-driving car was the best for the world, but the vast majority selected the egoistic mode for themselves. When sharing this with a Bible Class in 2023 an early owner of a Tesla said that you choose when getting the Full Self-Driving option “A” for altruistic and “E” for Egotistical.

The reason this caught my eye was the a Harai points out that people’s fear of AI is that it will run amuck in, “Sorry Dave, I can’t do that”, but their real fear should be that AI will ruthlessly and always follow its programs no matter what. If you have an egotistically “minded”, actually it would be “programmed”, car, if given the option of running you into a brick wall, telephone poll, tree or into a person – even a child – standing in the street, it will preserve you by striking the pedestrian.

I believe most will be okay with this for the same reason Living Wills are popular with patient and family alike. (By the by, this is one of the “real issues” that Midgley says we are dodging the stress of.) Living Wills takes the decision out of the hands of loved ones. They don’t have decide whether to stop medical care. Nope. A person who may or may not share the Faith about life and death, good and evil, sin and grace, a person who doesn’t know their loved, possibly at all, makes the decision.

FOMO, Fear Of Missing Out is one thing that plagues Internet Generations. But equally important to them is ATOO, Able To Opt Out, particularity of a responsibility or liability that comes with your position in the family, in work, in society, in life. So while virtually nobody willingly signs away their option to bring legal action beforehand, opting out of the heavy responsibility of making life and death decisions for your loved one beforehand is golden. Hey, I didn’t chose to kill that person my car did. I didn’t choose to stop medical treatment that doctor did.

Not only have you ATOO successfully, you have time to get to that thing you were FOMO about.

About Paul Harris

Pastor Harris retired from congregational ministry after 40 years in office on 31 December 2023. He is now devoting himself to being a husband, father, and grandfather. He still thinks cenobitic monasticism is overrated and cave dwelling under.
This entry was posted in Big Tech Big Lie or Promise?, Families. Bookmark the permalink.