If you’re not familiar with the “Trolley Problem” scenario, check it out here on Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem. It’s a pretty well known and oft-cited vignette in circles of psychology, ethics, and morality.  There are several interesting variations of it that control for different decision making or ethical factors.

One thing that none of the variations account for, however, is our ability to explain or justify our actions or decisions after the fact.  The difficulty of making a tough decision (or the right decision) is often tempered by our knowledge that we’ll be able to explain our reasoning later.    Ie:  It’s probably easier for a dad to put down the sick family dog, knowing that he’ll later be able to explain it to his kids.

Another factor that the Trolley problem misses is this:  the results of deciding one way or another (in the base Trolley model:  pulling or not pulling the lever on the tracks) are known to both the decider and any observers (who pass judgement the decider).   The fact that the results of the decision not taken are known by all can influence the decision.

Let’s take a look at what happens if we remove the observer/judger’s ability to know what would have happened if the decider had chosen differently, and the decider’s ability to explain his reasoning to the observer/judger.

As a simple model, I’ll use the existing “Fat Man” variant of the Trolley problem (explained in the Wikipedia link referenced above), and modify it slightly:

A trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by putting something very heavy in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you – your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five.

There is a crowd of people watching you, consisting of friends, family, and strangers.  They do not know that there are five people further down the track…only you know this.  They only see you and a fat man standing by a train track with a train on its way.  The fat man is being visibly friendly to you.

The catch:  if you decide to kill the fat man to stop the train, you must immediately flee the area, never to see or speak to any of the observers again.  No one, even the train conductor, will ever know that there were 5 people further down the track that survived due to your decision.

Would you / should you push the fat man onto the tracks?  The utilitarian in us will find it easy to say yes.  But really think about it, and try to put yourself in those shoes….

If you kill one to save five, the only person you’ll be able to confide in is yourself.  You’re reputation to everyone else – people you know and care about as well as total strangers – will only be as a killer of one, not a saver of five (or a net save of 4 lives).

I’m no psychologist (surprise!), but this issue/scenario came to me as I was pondering proximate vs ultimate results of our decisions or actions.  There are probably a few parallel scenarios that you can form from the above concept, but honestly its applicability is limited because we don’t always know with certainty the results of our decisions in advance (we don’t always know there are 5 people further down the track).   But as a thought experiment, I think it’s worth a minute or two to ponder.