The Trolley Problem & Hindu Virtue Ethics
Originally posted on The Modern Hindu
The trolley problem is a classic thought experiment in ethics that explores the dilemma regarding the consequences of sin by action vs. inaction. The general scenario is this: There is a trolley barreling down the tracks, and five men tied to the tracks are about to be run over by the trolley. However, if a lever is pulled, the trolley will shift to an adjacent track to which only one man is tied. You, the bystander, must make a decision. Do you pull the lever and make the trolley shift tracks, killing the one man but saving five, or do you do nothing and let the trolley kill five people?
This classic problem explores the implications of action and inaction on their consequences and tries to determine whether or not the ends can justify the means. Much of Western ideology derived from a Christian standpoint promotes a deontological framework, where rightness and wrongness of conduct are determined by the rules and motives. The deontological framework laid out by Immanuel Kant says that one cannot kill even if it saves more people in the process, because what is “right” matters more than what is “good”. Kant would likely choose to do nothing in the trolley problem and let the five people die, because the act of pulling the lever and killing the one person cannot be justified by the consequences of saving more people under his framework (Keya 1).
Hinduism and Krishna’s Bhagavata religion, on the other hand, present a more forgiving and contextually dependent take on the trolley problem. Though it is wrong to take a life, the context is important in making such decisions. In fact, the whole essence of dharma is that it considers what the right thing to do is given the particular place, time, person, and situation. The Gita is more conscious of the consequentialist framework than Kant’s Christian-derived deontology, in which good consequences of wrong actions will be taken into account when considering what is dharma.
In the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna that “people cannot exist without performing karmans in one form or another,” (Gita 3.8) and “must understand the difference between karman, akarman, and vikarman” (Gita 4.17). Karman is the result of deciding to perform an action, akarman is the result of the conscious decision to not perform an action, and vikarman is the result of deciding to perform a wrong action. Karmans produce bindings to the world through attachment, and only by learning to let go of attachments without stopping karmans will the individual be able to achieve ekatvam.
The trolley problem makes it a bit more difficult to classify an action simply as karman or vikarman. What is it that makes an action “wrong”? Is it its deviance from preset rules, or rather the consequences of the action? If it is the former that determines an action’s rightness, then pulling the lever, would be classified as vikarman. Pulling the lever directly causes a man to die, making the action murder and therefore against the rules. Under this framework, pulling the lever is the wrong thing to do. However, if it is the consequences that determine an action’s rightness rather than its deviance from the rules, then pulling the lever would be classified as karman, not vikarman. The consequence of pulling the lever allows five people to live and therefore outweighs the consequence of one person being killed, the ends justifying the means in this case. Under this framework, pulling the lever is the right thing to do.
Which framework does Hinduism operate under, the rules-based deontological framework or the consequentialist utilitarian framework? Would Krishna want us to do nothing and kill five people or pull the lever and kill one? Upon closer analysis of Krishna’s statements and lessons in the Gita, we see that Krishna tends toward a kind of consequentialism, but one that is not strictly associated with the western idea of utilitarianism. This initially seems ironic considering how frequently Krishna speaks against “attachment to the phals of action” (Gita 2.47) and encourages nishkam karma, the performance of action without desire or expectation of results or consequences. It seems that in order for consequentialism to be compatible with the Gita’s philosophy, the phals of action must in fact be expected. However, there is a small but important distinction to be made. While Krishna encourages the removal of expectation of an action’s results, he does not encourage “renunciation” or “ignorance” of said results.
Several times in the Gita, we see that Krishna gives significant importance to the consequences of worldly activities (Shukla). In the very beginning of the Gita, Krishna uses a strong consequentialist argument to convince Arjuna of fulfilling his kshatriya dharma and fighting in this war in order to avoid papa, bad psychic consequences. “If you will not undertake this dharmic battle, having avoided your svadharma and your kirti, you will obtain papa” (Gita 2.33). On that point, Krishna also explains to Arjuna that by dedicating himself to yuddha, he will “obtain svarga if killed and enjoy the whole earth if he conquers” (Gita 2.37). This explicit reference to the consequences in aiding Arjuna’s decision to fight lends greatly to the consequentialist themes in the Gita.
Krishna also explains the dangers of being attached to akarman (Gita 2.47), where one tries to escape karma-bandhas (the bindings of one’s actions) by pursuing “ascetic removal from worldly activities” (Flick 5). Krishna suggests avoiding this path because most are unable to fully devote themselves to this arduous task that requires full attention and devotion on God, and would be left with no other path if they happen to stray from their declared asceticism. For this reason, Krishna says that pursuing worldly actions with one’s mind fixed on God is the best way to escape karma-bandhas.
Most importantly in terms of the trolley problem, the Gita shows undertones of utilitarianism. Yudhisthira in the Mahabharata once said that there are many dharmas but the only way to find the correct one is to follow the mahajana, which can be translated either as “a great man” or as “a majority of people” (Agarwal 93). Krishna also says something similar to Arjuna: “Whatever the best man does, other men do as well. Whatever standard for truth such a person sets, the world follows” (Gita 3.21). Suggesting to choose dharma based on “the greater populace” or “the greater good” implies that Krishna would choose to pull the lever to kill one person and save five people in the trolley problem rather than do nothing and let five people die. Such utility and “greater good” is achieved usually by giving up one’s own personal preferences in a selfless manner. Krishna encourages exactly this when he tells Arjuna to fight once having “given over his karmans to Him” and “become without selfishness” (Gita 3.30).
It is important to understand that in Krishna’s Bhagavata religion, morality comes from the adherence to dharma and the desire to collect positive karma. Deciding which dharma to adhere to and whether to perform karmans or akarmans, however, is the more difficult question to answer. Understanding the various facets of the deontological and consequentialist frameworks upon which the Gita operates helps to cultivate a more thorough appreciation for the suggestions that Krishna makes, and helps us to better incorporate those lessons into our own daily lives.
Sources:
Maitra Keya, Comparing the Bhagavad Gita and Kant: A Lesson in Comparative Philosophy, (Asheville, NC, 2006), 1.
Rajesh Shukla, “Similarities Beyond Differences: Mill’s Utilitarianism and the Consequentialism of the Bhagavad Gita.” Journal of East West Thought.
Hugh M. Flick, “Karman in the Bhagavad Gita,” 5.
Satya P. Agarwal, Selections from the Mahabharata: Reaffirming Gita’s Call for the Good of All, 93
