In 1944, German missiles surrounded the sky above London that resulted in catastrophic damages. These missiles were not piloted and were controlled remotely, which meant that the British were the only people who were taking all the damages with no consequences for the Germans. These bombs were very close to the center where the streets were heavily populated and held many important buildings such as the Guards Chapel and Buckingham Palace. The British began to plot a strategy that can save many more lives by deceiving the Germans by using their own spies, whom were actually working with the allies, to communicate false information of the damages caused by the missiles. The British was hoping that they will alter their calculations on their targets and aim more south in which there are less people, resulting in the greater amount of lives saved. British Prime Minister Winston Churchill believed that his decision to divert the missiles to the south was ethical because he prevented a greater amount of casualties.
In like manner, the Spur of the Moment explains the scenario where a runaway train with malfunctioned brakes is on its way to five people who are tied to the train tracks ahead. You have a choice to turn the switch which will divert the train to a different path, but one person is tied to the train track in this alternative route. In many cases related to the Trolleyology, you cannot save everyone. There is always a losing party. Edmonds also provides an example of health officials who have to make the decision to fund a Drug A rather than Drug B, resulting in a group of people who does not have the drug they need to improve their medical condition. In this chapter, Edmonds highlights the different situations in which practices the trolleyology dilemma, and how it has expanded to different areas of studies, specifically in the social sciences field.
In the same fashion, the Fat Man version of the trolleyology dilemma is introduced. The moral dilemma in this case consists of you, a fat man standing next to you, a runaway train, and five people tied to the tracks in front of the train. You have the option to save the five people by pushing the fat man down the tracks to block the train from hitting the five people tied to the tracks. What would be the right decision to make? You alone cannot sacrifice yourself in order to save the other five people because you are not big enough to stop the train. If you push the fat man over the bridge, you will become a murderer but also a savior. Can you live knowing that you killed someone in order to save a greater amount of people?
In all of the scenarios presented, it tests the boundary of an individual’s moral reasoning until they feel that their decision is just wrong or feels wrong. In a different scenario, a man is going to be run over by an incoming train. There is a lady standing nearby, and the body parts of the man struck by the train hits her and she is injured. The question posed is “Should the woman sue the estates of the dead man?” This explains the comfort zone that we stay in when making these decisions according to the moral dilemmas were are faced with.
