web analytics

The Fat Man and the Impending Doom: A Heavier Take on the Trolley Problem

You’re standing on a footbridge overlooking train tracks. Below you, a runaway trolley speeds toward five unsuspecting people tied to the tracks. There’s no time to warn them. But next to you is a very large man—he’s big enough that if pushed off the bridge, his body would stop the trolley, saving the five. He would die, but they would live.

Do you push the man?

This is the Fat Man variant of the Trolley Problem, one of ethics’ most famous thought experiments. First proposed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson in the 1980s, it takes the original trolley dilemma and ratchets up the discomfort. It forces us to ask: Is it ever morally acceptable to sacrifice one person to save many actively?

The Original Trolley Problem

Before diving into the footbridge, let’s revisit the original dilemma:

A trolley is headed toward five people tied to the tracks. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley to another track, where it will kill just one person. Do you pull the lever?

Most people say yes—it feels like a tragic but rational trade: five lives for one.

But the Fat Man variation tweaks just one detail—and suddenly, most people say no.

Why the Change in Judgment?

Both scenarios involve sacrificing one person to save five. So why do people feel differently?

The key difference lies in direct action versus indirect action.

  • In the original, you pull a lever. The death is a byproduct.

  • In the Fat Man case, you physically push someone. The death is instrumental.

This distinction activates different ethical instincts.

Deontological Ethics (Duty-Based)

Deontologists argue that some actions are inherently wrong, regardless of the outcomes.

  • Killing an innocent person, especially by personal force, violates a moral duty.

  • It treats the fat man as a means to an end, not as an end in himself.

From this view, pushing the man is murder, even if the outcome saves more lives.

Utilitarian Ethics (Outcome-Based)

Utilitarians care about maximizing well-being. Five lives are more valuable than one. The math is the same in both cases.

But even many utilitarians feel discomfort here, especially if intentions and consequences blur. It raises the slippery question: Can we justify any harm if it brings greater good?

Virtue Ethics

Virtue ethicists focus on the kind of person you are, not just what you do.

  • Would a virtuous person push the man?

  • Is courage or compassion expressed by action—or restraint?

Virtue ethics encourages reflection on moral character, not just decision-making outcomes.

Moral Intuition and Emotion

Studies in psychology show that people react more negatively to the Fat Man scenario because it triggers emotional reasoning:

  • Physical contact (pushing a person) feels more violent.

  • You’re personally involved, not just operating a switch.

  • The action is intentional and premeditated.

Neuroscience supports this. Personal moral dilemmas activate brain areas linked to emotion (like the amygdala), while impersonal dilemmas engage reasoning centers (like the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex).

This suggests that morality is not just logical—it’s deeply emotional.

Cultural and Legal Considerations

Different cultures approach this dilemma in distinct ways:

  • In some collectivist cultures, sacrificing one to save many may be more acceptable.

  • In individualist societies, personal rights and bodily autonomy are more sacred.

Legally, pushing the man would likely be seen as premeditated homicide. The law doesn’t typically weigh moral outcomes—it protects rights and punishes intentional harm.

Real-World Parallels

Though unlikely to face this exact scenario, similar ethical dilemmas exist:

1. Medical Triage

Doctors in overwhelmed hospitals must decide who gets care when resources are limited. Choosing who lives and dies echoes trolley-style logic.

2. Drone Warfare

Operators may choose to kill one known target to prevent a future attack. But civilian casualties complicate the ethical equation.

3. Self-Driving Cars

Should an autonomous vehicle swerve to avoid five pedestrians if it means killing the passenger? Designers are now encoding moral decisions into machines.

These aren’t theoretical anymore—they’re real decisions with lives in the balance.

Critics and Modifications

Some philosophers challenge the Fat Man scenario entirely:

  • It’s unrealistic: people don’t stop trolleys with their bodies.

  • It’s emotionally manipulative, designed to elicit a certain reaction.

  • It assumes perfect knowledge: we know the outcomes with certainty.

Others embrace it as a useful test case. It doesn’t need to be realistic—it’s a moral mirror that reveals what principles we value most.

A Thought Experiment… or a Trap?

Some ethicists argue the Fat Man problem distorts morality by presenting a no-win binary. Real life offers nuance, negotiation, and compromise.

Still, it forces us to wrestle with hard questions:

  • Are we more responsible for what we do, or what we allow?

  • Does proximity change moral responsibility?

  • Can one life ever be worth less than five?

Glossary of Terms

  • Deontology – Ethical theory that emphasizes duties and rules.

  • Utilitarianism – Moral philosophy focused on maximizing overall good.

  • Virtue Ethics – An approach to ethics that emphasizes character and moral virtues.

  • Trolley Problem – A thought experiment exploring the ethics of sacrificing one life to save many.

  • Moral Intuition – Immediate gut reactions to moral dilemmas, often shaped by emotion.

Discussion Questions

  1. Why does pushing the man feel more morally wrong than pulling a lever?

  2. Should we always prioritize the greater good, even if it involves direct harm?

  3. How do emotions shape our ethical judgments—should we trust them?

References and Further Reading