What Defines a Good Person?

Those inclined to press the button are often regular individuals—your neighbor, your best friend, or even you. They are typically kind-hearted, engaging in altruistic acts such as helping others or donating to charity.

Nonetheless, the willingness to sacrifice a life for financial gain has somewhat shaken my faith in humanity. While I can't deny the temptation, my moral compass typically governs my actions, and I couldn't bear the guilt of such a choice.

People who justify pressing the button often cite three main reasons:

1. Death is a constant in life; one more death may seem inconsequential, especially when a million dollars can dramatically improve one’s life or the lives of loved ones.
2. The individual who dies might be a criminal—a murderer, rapist, or terrorist.
3. The money could potentially save multiple lives, resulting in a net positive moral outcome.

While I strive to be understanding of differing viewpoints, the first argument strikes me as fundamentally flawed. Just because loss is ubiquitous does not render it acceptable to cause harm. This logic could open the floodgates for any crime if one remains undetected, allowing for heinous acts under the guise of justification.

Three possible reasons might prevent someone from pressing the button, even if they considered it:

1. Fear of incarceration—if that’s the only deterrent, it suggests a psychopathic disposition.
2. Lack of need for money—if so, why contemplate pressing the button?
3. A sense of guilt—if this is the case, then the individual possesses empathy rather than a strong moral compass.

Focusing on the third point, empathy is indeed valuable, but it alone should not dictate one’s moral framework. A robust ethical foundation should blend both emotional and cognitive perspectives, allowing for the consideration of lives that one is not personally connected to.

This demonstrates that many psychopaths, in a clinical sense, can still embody positive traits. Ideally, a moral framework should incorporate both empathy and rational thought. While 1% of the population may fit the psychopathic profile, only a minority of these individuals engage in criminal behavior.

This first argument parallels the flawed reasoning that “the flu kills more people” often used to dismiss the necessity of lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic.

The second argument—that the deceased might be a villain—strikes me as even more absurd. This line of thinking could theoretically justify killing anyone, as one could argue that any random individual might also be a “bad” person.

In reality, it is far more likely that the person who dies is a loving individual contributing positively to society and surrounded by people who care for them.

I don’t claim to be perfect; I can’t predict how I would react if faced with such a situation. However, I refuse to employ excuses to rationalize greed and selfishness.

The third argument deserves further examination. While I doubt that many who make this claim would genuinely use the funds for good, let’s assume they would.

If pressing the button could potentially save more lives, is it justified?

The Million-Dollar Trolley Problem

This scenario can be likened to a variation of the Trolley Problem. The classic version presents a situation where a runaway trolley is set to kill five people tied to a track. You stand next to a lever that can divert the trolley onto a side track where one individual is tied down. You face the choice: do nothing and let five die, or pull the lever to save five at the cost of one?

Most people would opt to divert the trolley, but this action directly results in the death of the individual on the side track.

There’s no universal answer; it hinges on one’s ethical framework. The three primary schools of ethical thought—Virtue Ethics, Consequentialism, and Deontology—each offer differing perspectives.

Most would likely pull the lever, but the scenario can become more convoluted. Here are some variations of the classic dilemma:

• The Fat Man: You can push a hefty person off a bridge to stop the trolley, sacrificing him to save five.
• The Fat Villain: Similar to the first scenario, but this time the heavy man is responsible for the predicament of the five individuals on the track.
• The Loop: You can divert the trolley onto a track with a heavy man who would stop it, but also would die in the process.
• The Man on the Yard: You can crash another trolley into the main one to save five, but this would kill another man in a yard.
• The Transplant: Instead of a trolley, you are a surgeon with five patients needing organs. You can kill one healthy person to save them.

The pressing button dilemma mirrors the Trolley Problem, allowing for the option to either remain passive and let many die or sacrifice one life for a monetary reward that could potentially save others.

The answers to these dilemmas vary based on which ethical school resonates most with you.

What If Hitler Were a Hero?

Now that I've provoked you with that title, let’s briefly explore ethics. The three primary ethical frameworks include:

1. Virtue Ethics: Focuses on integrity and adherence to a set of values. We inherently recognize certain moral principles, like the wrongness of murder. Aristotle significantly influenced this school, outlining various virtues and vices.
2. Consequentialism: Assesses the morality of actions based on their outcomes. Actions are not inherently good or bad; their consequences define their morality. Killing may be wrong, but if it saves two lives, then not acting could be deemed wrong. Utilitarianism is a prominent subset of consequentialism focused on maximizing overall happiness.
3. Deontology: Centers on established rules. Actions are deemed right or wrong based solely on their adherence to these rules, regardless of outcomes. Many religious doctrines align with deontological principles.

Understanding your preferred ethical framework can simplify responses to trolley problems. Generally, Virtue Ethics and Deontology advocate inaction, while Consequentialism promotes taking action.

The contradictions among these schools illustrate the complexity of ethics. Deontology is straightforward: adhere to the rules, and you are considered good. This is why many religions align with this perspective, as rules dictate moral behavior.

I personally find Deontology less compelling. Which rules should one follow, and who establishes them? Rules alone can’t encompass every scenario and may require wise exceptions.

Virtue Ethics appears more reasonable, yet it also feels insufficient. It aligns with empathetic morality, which only considers direct consequences. According to Virtue Ethics, pressing the button would be wrong due to the immediate death it would cause.

In my view, Consequentialism, particularly Utilitarianism, presents the most compelling framework. It formulates morality in terms of utility, which resonates with my analytical mindset.

However, applying Utilitarianism consistently proves challenging. I lack the courage to take extreme actions, even if they may yield the best outcomes according to my beliefs. Yet, I would likely pull the lever in the trolley scenario, even if my emotional response would vary based on the scenario's particulars.

Utilitarianism can lead to confusion over right and wrong, as beneficial actions can have negative indirect effects. For instance, while most agree that Hitler was a villain, what if one of the Jewish individuals he persecuted had been poised to cause widespread destruction?

If that were the case, not only could Hitler be viewed in a different light, but he could even be seen as a hero from a Utilitarian perspective. Conversely, while Louis Pasteur is celebrated for saving countless lives, what if one of those he saved was a future criminal mastermind?

Living by pure Utilitarianism could drive one to madness, as it’s impossible to foresee all consequences. Thus, I believe a combined approach of Utilitarianism and Virtue Ethics is essential. The latter can serve as a practical guide to the former.

Returning to the button dilemma: according to Deontological principles, one should not kill, while Virtue Ethics would also discourage such an act for financial gain. However, if one adopts a Utilitarian perspective, pressing the button could be justified if it enables saving multiple lives.

Effective Altruism for the Utilitarian Mind

A couple of years ago, I discovered the philosophy of effective altruism, which has gained traction through resources like 80,000 Hours. This concept emphasizes not just giving to charities, but ensuring that such contributions yield the maximum possible benefit.

As we ponder charitable donations, we often overlook questions regarding the effectiveness of the charities we support. Effective altruism seeks to address these concerns by encouraging informed giving.

While donating aligns with Virtue Ethics, effective altruism is rooted in Utilitarian principles. Resources like 80,000 Hours provide valuable insights into which charities are most impactful and how one’s contributions can save the most lives.

Evidence suggests that some charities operate at vastly different levels of effectiveness. For example:

• Providing a guide dog for a visually impaired person in a wealthy nation costs approximately $10,000.
• Cataract surgery for a blind person in a developing country can be as low as $35.

If one believes that lives hold equal value, it follows that a Utilitarian approach would prioritize funding cataract surgeries.

This scenario exemplifies marginal cost theory in economics. To maximize aid, it’s vital to recognize that many individuals require minimal support. As more individuals are helped, the costs for additional assistance typically increase.

Ultimately, effective altruism tends to focus on aiding those in developing nations, as the resources needed to help individuals in wealthier countries often exceed what is necessary for those in dire need.

If driven solely by empathetic morality, one might feel conflicted by this perspective. Many individuals from WEIRD (Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, Democratic) societies often empathize more with others from similar backgrounds, overlooking the equal value of lives in non-WEIRD contexts.

So, how many lives could one million dollars save? According to GiveWell, a charity evaluation organization, you could potentially save a life with as little as $3,340 by donating to the Against Malaria Foundation, which distributes malaria prevention nets in sub-Saharan Africa.

Thus, the analysis concludes that pressing the button could mean the death of one individual, but this sacrifice might save as many as 300 others.

If this exploration served as a subtle nudge toward effective altruism, then I admit my intentions. If you are someone who would press the button purely for selfish reasons, I recognize that my arguments may not sway you. However, I suspect that most readers are contemplating the deeper implications of this ethical dilemma.

For those looking to make a meaningful impact with a Utilitarian approach, I hope this discussion encourages you to consider effective altruism as a guiding principle. If you are already contributing to charitable causes, why not optimize your impact?

In conclusion, if faced with the million-dollar button, my Utilitarian inclination would likely compel me to press it and donate the proceeds to the Against Malaria Foundation. Yet, my appreciation for Virtue Ethics would linger, leaving me with a sense of guilt that could last a lifetime.