The Impossible Trolley Problem

 

Most are aware of The Trolley Problem. It's one of those so-called "thought experiments" academics have contrived, presumably to make us, or at least their poor students, think. It was apparently created by an English philosopher named Philippa Foot.

A railroad or trolly track splits into two tracks going in separate directions.  By throwing a switch you may cause the trolley to take either route. Throwing it one way (A) will cause the trolley to follow the track to which five people are tied, killing them.  Throwing it the other way (B) will cause the trolley to follow the other track to which a single person is tied, killing that person.  Which way should you throw the switch?

There are variants of the problem.  What if the person tied to track B is a child? Would your choice be different?  What if a mass murder is tied to B?  What if it is Jeffrey Dahmer, munching on the leg of one of his victims?

Food for thought, no doubt (sorry).  How should you decide?

Well, like all of philosophers' problems, there is no definite answer.  Therein I think lies The Trolley Problem's problem.  It's the same problem other philosophical problems possess.

It's not an actual problem.  That is to say, it's not a problem which would arise, in life.  Why are we being asked to solve a problem which will never arise?  Why should we contemplate choices to be made in circumstances we won't encounter?

One might argue it compels us to think.  John Dewey said we only really think when we encounter problems.  But I doubt he was referring to imaginary problems.  Rather, he was referring to problems in life which could be resolved through intelligent thought and consideration.

C. S. Peirce observed that Descartes, when he purported to doubt everything in attempting to determine whether he could be certain of anything, clearly didn't really doubt. Rather, he pretended to doubt that which he clearly didn't doubt judging from his own behavior each moment of his life.  There's no real problem to resolve, no real question to answer, when we have no reason to resolve, or doubt.

Wouldn't it be more useful to address problems we face here and now?  Why doesn't philosophy, and why don't philosophers, address the actual problems of humanity?

Ecrasez l'infame!

 

Voltaire used this maxim or motto in his correspondence.  It may be translated as: "Crush the infamous (thing)!"  That thing was the Catholic Curch of the time, busy banning and sometimes burning books, including some by Voltaire, and it's oppression of thought and freedom in combination with the government of Louis XV.  It became a sort of war cry of the Enlightement, and was directed not merely against the Church and the autocratic King but also superstition, bigotry, stupidity, ignorance and what the superstitious, bigoted, stupid and ignorant people in power were prone to do then and remain prone to do now.

Though centuries have passed since the time of Votaire, it seems human nature hasn't changed in any significant sense.  But we have, through the application of science and technology, become vastly more capable of communicating and imposing the most contemptible aspects of our nature. In this fashion our capacity for reasoning and problem solving is placed at the service of our cruelty and cowardice--reason serves the irrational.  We're only capable of reason, not reasonable.  We are reasonable only when we must be, or it pleases us to be.

Those who want to impose their religious beliefs on others are still trying to do so.  Efforts are being made to display the Ten Commandments in public schools in Texas and other states.  While lower courts have enjoined these exhibitions, as our Supreme Court has allowed group prayer in the middle of high school football fields, the First Amendment be damned, it's likely it would bless even the recitation of the Commandments at the start of each class.  

Our peculiar Secretary of Defense proselytizes on behalf of a very peculiar church which asserts that Jesus doesn't want women to vote and are subordinate by the will of God.  The subjugation of women seems to be common to all Abrahamic religions from their inception. 

Subjugation is characteristic of the times, perhaps of all times, for us. As freedom is being eroded one comes to appreciate the allure of a solitary life. Oh, to be a hermit!  Or at least to be otherwise apart from the scene of our current crimes. One wonders if this was the attraction of a monastery, or still could be.

Perhaps the infamous things surrounding us can't be crushed, and escape is the only reasonable option. But it seems ignoble not to oppose infamy. And perhaps what Pierre Hadot called the inner citadel available to Marcus Aurelius and other Stoics can protect us from being subjugated, while we oppose it subjugation.

Sanctuary! Sanctuary!

 

Here we see Quasimodo, splendidly played by Charles Laughton, crying "Sanctuary!" and claiming the protection of the sacred space of Notre Dame Cathedral for Esmeralda, having first dramatically snatched her away from the noose.  She was to be hung for witchcraft.  I couldn't bring myself to use images from Disney's weird version of Victor Hugo's novel.

"Sanctuary" was originally used to refer to a place sacred to a divinity and so apart from the profane world of men and women.  Gradually, it came to signify a place where human law did not apply.  So, at least in theory, a fugitive from temporal law or power having entered the sacred space could claim sanctuary and be beyond the reach of the temporal authorities; in effect, immune while in that space.  In practice, it seems that this rule was disregarded in some cases.  Sometimes, this immunity became a subject of negotiation.  For example, those having authority over the sanctuary might allow the person claiming protection to be taken into custody if it was promised that person would not be killed.

These sad days, we hear of "sanctuary cities" or jurisdictions.  Those in them aren't immune from the application of all law, however.  Instead, those municipalities refuse to cooperate with immigration authorities, much to the chagrin of conservatives, who now, unlike their predecessors, delight in the relentless enforcement and imposition of federal law, everywhere, local government be damned.

It's unfortunate that sanctuaries don't exist which can be fled to avoid the ever-expanding power of the federal government generally.  If churches, or at least that part of them surrounding the altar, were such sanctuaries how crowded they would be! It's a remarkable thing to see federal troops which were once used to enforce the rights of citizens to education and travel, to vote and assemble, now used largely to intimidate and to quash alleged "emergencies."  Emergencies in our Glorious Union now seem ubiquitous, judging from the peculiar logic of El Presidente and his lackeys.  Anything which can be used as a pretense for the exercise of Executive Authority will do.

O tempora, O mores!  One can almost hear Cicero crying out about the decadence of our times and customs, and the morals or lack of them of our representatives in all branches of government.  He was saddened by the decline of integrity in Republican Rome, soon to become autocratic and imperial.  It seems today that integrity has not merely declined, but has disappeared.  When did our legislators and judges of the high court become so meek, so obliging, so obsequious, so craven, so venal?  Have they (and have we) become willing victims of despotism?

Many of us seem to have Daddy Issues.  I don't refer to those issues which it's claimed by some involve the sexual activities or imagination of certain females.  Instead I refer to what seems to be a kind of creepy insecurity and desire to be led, if not dominated, by a father figure who will tell us what to do.  Presumably, he'll protect us as well.  Various figures in or on the outskirts of politics have voiced their fascination with and desire for a Daddy,  They may want to be spanked, poor creatures, or even better see someone else spanked.  Perhaps most characteristic of this childish desire for a Daddy is the relief that's felt at the fact that responsibility and authority is transferred to someone else.  Daddy will fix it, whatever it is.

Daddy will certainly fix us, in any case, they hope.  But some of us hope to find sanctuary even from Daddy.

Another Awakening?

 

Our Great Republic has, from time to time, been subject to what have been called "Awakenings."  These are episodes of typically Protestant Christian revivals during which people enthusiastically proclaim their faith and strive mightily to live by it, and to cause others to do so as well.  America has been more prone to showy evangelism than Europe, which has been relatively free from fundamentalist frenzy since the Renaissance.

There have been three of these "Great Awakenings."  They took place from the late 18th to the early 20th century.  It's claimed there was a fourth that took place in the 1960s and 1970s during the days of the Jesus Freaks, but there's no consensus on this claim.

It seems that some believe another Great Awakening is taking place.  This one, though, may not be wholly Protestant. The so-called "Catholic Woodstock" in which hundreds of thousands of young people celebrated in Rome in Jubilee style with the Pontifex Maximus is cited in support of this belief.

It's interesting to speculate regarding the causes of these events.  It strikes me that Christianity isn't a religion that celebrates humanity or the way we live our lives.  In fact, it denigrates us.  This may the result of Augustine's charming doctrine of Original Sin, according to which we're sinful and indeed on the highway to hell from birth, if not conception, all due to Adam and Eve, who made the mistake of seeking knowledge.  According to Augustinian Christianity (Pauline as well, I think) we're to burn in hellfire unless we're saved, and saving is a matter of God's grace which is, like all other things, in his discretion, regardless of our merits and good works.  It was on this basis that the Bishop of Hippo maintained that even the great pagan philosophers and moral figures were condemned, because they did not know Christ.  They were long dead before Jesus is said to have lived, but apparently they should have been aware of Jesus and his mission nonetheless.

For believers, then, as they are induced if not compelled to think that eternal torment awaits them unless they "awaken," it's hardly surprising that they'll be eager to "awaken" when the opportunity arises.  They'll be especially eager if they have in fact been sinful not merely by association, as it were, being the spawn of Adam and Eve, but sinful by their own word, thought and deed.  Most of them have sinned as that conduct is described by Christianity, and the desperate hope they will be saved is likely to have motivated Great Awakenings in the past.

I think that the sins of others or the perception that others have sinned also contribute to these awakenings.  The sinful conduct of others has always fascinated and ideed delighted faithful Christians, who look forward to watching their neighbors roast while they sit in heaven, cherished by God.  But more than that, it seems a maxim of evangelical and fundamentalist Christianity that God in his wisdom will punish humanity at large for sinful behavior.  God has famously done so by flood, but will also hurl hurricanes and tornados, incite wars, spread deadly disease, cause famine, and inflict other horrors on us all should people engage in homosexuality, for example, or legalize abortion.

It happens that there is every reason to think our society is corrupt and immoral if the conduct of our leaders, and the wealthy and the powerful of our time is any indication of our state of sinfulness.  It wouldn't surprise me if people, and particularly young people, look at the world and perceive it to be depraved, cruel and where politicians are concerned incredibly venal.  As a consequence they search for something or someone moral and admirable, which will save the world from the selfish and hateful people which dominate it.

It's unfortunate, however, that the awakening that's sought and takes place is to a system of belief which is exclusive and intolerant.  It admits of only one faith, one way of living, one way of thinking.  That's what it is believed will save those who awaken, and nothing else.  The Great Awakenings which have taken place are narrow and limited; moral conduct is not sought, nor is wisdom, or happiness.  Adherence to doctrine is what is demanded.  Nothing more.

Myth and Manipulation

 

The Siege of Masada was, and perhaps still is, a myth treasured and propagated in Israel since it's founding.  Not that the siege itself is a myth. It took place.  But the actual siege differs from the myth.

The myth states that a relatively small (about 1,000 people) group of Jews defended the fortress/palace of Masada against the mighty Roman Empire after the fall of Jerusalem during the great first Jewish revolt for about three years. Finally, when the Romans managed to breach the fortress, the Jews chose to commit suicide rather than surrender.

The myth served to inspire a new nation made up largely of people who escaped the Holocaust, many of whom believed they were entitled to rule land long lived in by others hostile to them.  They, like the ancient Jewish defenders of Masada, would fight long and courageously against great odds and, if necessary, die by their own hands rather than surrender.

If you've seen pictures of Herod's great fortress or better yet visited it, it's not difficult to believe it would take years for it to be conquered.  But modern analysis and investigation of the site using drones and advanced technology now available establish the Roman legion and auxiliary troops consisting of 6,000 to 8,000 men took the fortress in a matter of weeks.  In the time, they built camps surrounding it, a wall around it, constructed a massive ramp to its gates high above the desert and siege engines allowing for the successful assault.  Even the mass suicide is now being questioned.

So, the siege now seems more a testament to the ferocity and efficiency of the Roman army than anything else.  The myth, on the other hand, is shown to be incredible, even absurd. One who believed in it must feel silly or naive, I would think. Perhaps even feel a fool.  I would, in any case.

One who feels he's been a fool may feel he's been made a fool of; may resent those who propagated the myth.  This is a danger when a myth is used to gain an end through or advantage over others.

Modern cults are generally based on myths in the modern sense of beliefs that are untrue.  Modern cult leaders are thus dependent on untruths.  It's been proposed that the person I'll refer to here as "El Presidente" (like the leader of a banana republic) is the leader of a cult. And it does seem that he and his minions delight in the propagation of myths.  Inconvenient truths are not merely questioned.  They're not merely denied. Myths are substituted for them. 

This is the case even where numbers are concerned.,  It isn't far from firing someone whose department advises of statistics El Presidente would rather not acknowledge to claiming, as in Orwell's 1984, that 2 + 2=5, and as we've seen insisting that what's clearly true is untrue.

I hope someday those being manipulated by myths will understand they've been made fools of and react accordingly. Or they may take their place in the cult as many have already, hoping to profit from those fooled.