Eye in the Sky, which I saw last Wednesday, is not a great film but it is a thought-provoking, absorbing and informative one. It enacts vividly before our eyes a well-known and much discussed moral dilemma. It confronts us at every turn with the question, ‘What would I do?’ It shows us in gripping detail what might have been going on behind the scenes of what all too often becomes too rapidly just another challenging headline that we’d all rather forget.
The classic dilemma we are confronted with is described in Marc Hauser’s book Moral Minds (pages 117-119). It comes in two forms.
Dilemma One
‘Ned is taking his daily walk near the trolley track when he notices that the approaching trolley is out of control. He sees what has happened. The conductor has passed out and the trolley is headed towards five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that the five hikers will not be able to get off the track in time. Fortunately, Ned is standing next to a switch that he can throw, which will temporarily turn the trolley onto a side track. There is a heavy object on the side track. If the trolley hits the object, the object will slow it down, thereby giving the hikers time to escape. The heavy object is, however, a large person standing on the side track. Ned can throw the switch, preventing the trolley from killing the hikers, but killing the large person. Or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five hikers die.’
Dilemma Two
‘Oscar is taking his daily walk near the trolley track when he notices that the approaching trolley is out of control. He sees what has happened. The conductor has passed out and the trolley is headed towards five people walking on the track. The banks are so steep that the five hikers will not be able to get off the track in time. Fortunately, Ned is standing next to a switch that he can throw, which will temporarily turn the trolley onto a side track. There is a heavy object on the side track. If the trolley hits the object, the object will slow it down, thereby giving the hikers time to escape. There is however a person standing on the side track in front of the heavy object. Oscar can throw the switch, preventing the trolley from killing the hikers, but killing the person in front of the weight. Or he can refrain from doing this, letting the five hikers die.’
It would be good to pause at this point to make your own judgement, before reading on to see what Hauser makes of these two dilemmas.
Hauser’s View
My intuition is that it is not permissible for Ned to flip the switch, but it is permissible for Oscar to flip the switch. If Ned and flips the switch, he is committing intentional harm. The only way to save the five hikers is by turning the trolley onto the side track and using the large person as a means to stop the trolley. If Oscar flips the switch, he is causing harm, but as a foreseen side-effect. For Oscar, the goal is to use the heavy weight as a means of stopping the trolley. The fact that the person standing in front of the weight is ounfortunate, but it is not Oscar’s intent to kill this person. . . . . . the weight – not the person – provides the means to the greater good of saving five hikers.
Even so, this still leaves it necessary for us to make our judgement, not just about these examples, but also about the dilemma in the film.
It is an uncomfortable but enthralling experience, which helps us all get a better sense of the complexity of these situations that confront those acting on our behalf on a regular basis. We are complicit in everything they do or fail to do. We should not cop out of at least attempting to grapple with the moral dilemmas they pose. This is where my default strategy, previously discussed in detail, of having the courage of my confusion does not necessarily let me off the hook.
Everybody Means Something 