INTP Take on the Trolley Problem: Balancing Objectivity and Personal Reflection

When posed with the trolley problem, my response is grounded in the principle of reciprocity. The ethical dilemma centers on whether one should pull a lever to switch the trolley onto a different set of tracks, thereby saving five people but sacrificing one. In my perspective as an INTP, the problem isn't just about calculation or survival but a deeper reflection on personal values and the concept of sacrifice. Let's explore my thoughts in more detail.

My Take on the Trolley Problem: Balancing Objective Reasoning with Personal Reflection

When it comes to the trolley problem, my answer is grounded in the principle of reciprocity: “Do what you would want another person to do for you if you were the lone person on the track.” This simple yet powerful starting point helps frame the decision in terms of empathy and respect. Anything else feels like the answer of a coward. Initially, my response was bold and clear, reflecting a societal stance and my place in it. However, as I delved deeper, my answer evolved.

Wrestling with Bravado and Vulnerability

At first, my answer felt bold like a clear declaration about society and my place in it. Imagining my own child on the track made the stakes personal, and the tension of holding the lever intense. I then mentally switched roles—what if I were the one on the track? How would I want someone else to act? This exercise in role-reversal forced me to confront the heart of the problem: it's not just a calculation about lives or numbers, but about values, the meaning of sacrifice, and what it means to choose.

This realization led me to a different perspective. My heart pulled me toward siding with the lone individual—not because of the simple mathematics of “one versus many” but because of the opportunity for a clear contrast of perspectives. I imagined teaching this decision to my children not as a lesson in counting lives but as a demonstration of making a decision with integrity and empathy, understanding that even one life is infinitely valuable.

The Impact of Letting Bravado Fade

As the bravado faded, I found myself re-evaluating my initial stance. I began to see the complexities I had glossed over, the different motivations and choices that others might bring to the same situation. What if someone else said “Run me over, no second thoughts”? What if they chose to stay on the track not motivated by the lives saved but by their own understanding of duty or acceptance? Was my answer missing something essential in the way others might view sacrifice and choice?

This thought deflated me—almost. By making such bold claims, I realized I would have to allow space for other perspectives and interpretations that don’t align with my initial approach. Yet, after this reflection, I came back to my original stance more grounded than before.

Remaining Steadfast in My Choice

Despite considering other perspectives, I still believe that the answer lies with the one individual on the track, not simply because of numbers but because it represents the chance to act from a place of clarity and empathy. It’s a decision I would stand by, one that aligns with how I’d want others to act if I were in that position. This choice is not about calculating lives saved; it’s about acting in a way that honors the dignity and value of each person involved. It's a response I would want to teach, not for the numbers, but for the integrity behind it.

Conclusion: A Balance of Objectivity and Personal Reflection

For me, the trolley problem isn’t just an intellectual exercise. It’s a reminder that ethical decisions are complex, personal, and deeply connected to our values and relationships. My answer may not be universal, but it’s rooted in a commitment to reciprocity and the courage to face hard choices with a clear heart. And even though I recognize other answers might be just as valid, this is the one I would stand by, whether for my “U” or for anyone else.