You're familiar with the trolley problem, right?
(Here's a different take from The Good Place. Trigger warning: copious fake blood)
Here's a variation that came up in astronomy class the other day. It didn't start off as a traditional trolley problem. We were discussing government spending. We're pretty sure that a dinosaur killing sized asteroid is not currently heading towards us due to projects such as ATLAS. We could be even more sure if more money was given to build telescopes. However, any funds given to telescopes is less given to other causes (say for example orphans). Both protecting the Earth from asteroids and helping children are good things. We cannot fully solve either problem no matter how much money we throw at them. So, in this case the question comes down to how much is too much?
To keep it simple, let's pretend these are the only two funding issues. If we miss seeing a massive asteroid in time, it could kill everyone on Earth. On the other hand, we know that there are currently children starving. So, where do we draw the line? 50/50? 10/90? Or do we give all the money to one problem and ignore the other? It's an interesting real world application.
Well, that question got us down the rabbit hole of other scenarios (as the trolley problem ultimately does). Let's say that you have a human on one track and a puppy on the other. The answer is pretty clear hear: choose the human. How about 5 puppies and 1 human? What about 10 to 1? What is your puppy to human ratio? Is there a possible number of animals that would equal the worth of one human life?
We even got up to one side having one human and the other every dog on Earth. In fact, in this scenario, dogs would go extinct entirely if you choose the human. If human life is of infinite value, you would have to choose the human. Luckily, the literal trolley problem isn't something that you'll come face to face with in real life.
But how about this. Extending the trolley problem to the funding example that I proposed with the asteroid: is it okay to give any money to an animal shelter as long as there is a single hospital that is underfunded? A single person who is homeless? A single child who is hungry?
I would say yes, since animals are in the stewardship of humans. However, there are some who disagree and can make a compelling argument for it. It's not an easy question.
Comments
Post a Comment