Conservation and the Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem has become a staple of modern media culture. It has made rounds through film and television, memes, and even absurdist video games. Unfortunately, in this meteoric rise in fame, the Trolley Problem has lost its meaning. The once-respected ethical dilemma now often seems overly simplistic and detached from reality. It no longer holds the same significance it did in the 70’s.

In Phillipa Foot’s original article, the Trolley Problem is posed as follows. Suppose you are the driver of a runaway tram, and the tram is headed towards five rail workers. There is another track you could turn on instead. On it is someone tied to the rails. If you turn, you will kill the one. If you do nothing, you will kill the five.

Foot posits that the obvious choice is to turn. In fact, she finds this so obvious that she doesn’t even spend enough words to explain the action-versus-inaction issue. That comes later, when Judith Jarvis Thomson popularizes the dilemma, giving it its famous title. Foot briefly introduces the dilemma to discuss the nuances of double-effect morality and an ethical algorithm called the “doctrine of double effect”. She discusses other scenarios, such as a surgeon harvesting organs from one patient to save five, a judge framing an innocent person for an unsolvable crime to prevent bloody riots, and abortion.

Foot and Thomson both propose interesting dilemmas with nuanced arguments. Though I recommend reading them, I will refrain from making any comments on the conclusions they reach. What I will say is that their work demonstrates what the Trolley Problem truly symbolizes: one example in a network of nuanced ethical dilemmas. Each dilemma offers a new situation to test ethical frameworks, such as the doctrine of double effect.

In line with these ethical problems, I would like to propose one more, but with one, key difference. My problem is about non-human animals. This is the trophy hunting problem.

Suppose you are a conservationist working with local populations in Africa. As it stands, rampant poaching and habitat destruction will decimate the local wildlife. However, a trophy hunter has approached you, offering you lots of money to let them kill exactly one of the animals. If you take this money, it will go to conservation and protection efforts, saving many more animals. Do you take the trophy hunter’s offer?

When the trophy hunting problem was first presented to me, it wasn’t presented as an open question. Over a decade ago, in a very strange grade school lesson, I listened to my teacher share how trophy hunting could be beneficial, advocating for this arrangement. In fairness, the system was already in place, as conservationists were already taking money from trophy hunters.

The trophy hunting problem offers countless opportunities to explore ethical frameworks through nuanced details. How much money should this cost? How many lives should be saved to take the deal? How should population growth look afterward? How frequently do you take the deal? What if this were about humans instead of animals?

This trophy hunting problem serves as a reminder of the true nature of the Trolley Problem. It’s about reflecting on ethical approaches to life, questioning belief systems, and understanding that not all problems have a pretty solution. The Trolley Problem is more than a few memes and an episode of The Good Place. It’s the terrifying reality that our decisions can influence who lives and who dies, so choose wisely.