The trolley's existence

A thought experiment so revered for its simplicity; a puzzle that was created to not be solved: the trolley problem, the infamous unsolvable Rubiks Cube of the postmodern world. It poses a relatively simple conundrum, should we kill to save more lives? However, the actual experiment was one that was excruciatingly specific, scoped to a circumstance that seems implausible. Despite decades of moralists arguing about the 'right' answer, my stand, however, would be that the very existence of this experiment demonstrates to us why morals don't exist. The creation of this experiment already characterizes morality as circumstantial. If the world judges a person's morals based on their actions then a perfectly moral person can never truly exist. The actions of a person can never have a fixed set of moral equations to follow, and hence the full embodiment of a single circumstantial moral theory can never exist. Perhaps a more suitable way of viewing morality would be society's view of acceptability. Essentially, a person does not depend on any fixed set of morals to perform an action, instead, he depends on how society views his actions and whether they accept them or not.

Sigmund Freud, the father of psychoanalysis and a notable figure in psychology, split our psyche into 3 portions: the id, ego and super-ego. In summary, we are born with the id which satisfies our very basic needs such as nourishment, affection and even sexual tendencies. As we mature, our super-ego develops and is instrumental for any moral and social conscience in our lives. Our ego would be the part that mediates the 2 opposing poles, making us perform actions that are socially and morally acceptable while also satisfying our basic needs. For example, a baby needs food; being a baby he would cry and do everything within his capabilities to attain food. But when the baby grows up, he learns that it is socially acceptable to ask for food instead of simply doing whatever he can to attain that food. But the main focus here would be the super-ego. Perhaps the most complex part of our psyche, but one thing is clear, the very environment we grow in shapes our super-ego and decides our very morals. And hence we can argue that our morals are simply made up of what our experiences determine as socially acceptable. When we perform an action, the determinants of right and wrong are simply whether the action is going against what we are taught and what we have experienced in life. Even within private walls, we still have the need to follow these laws. Which begs the question, are we simply following these sets of social norms to the point where they have ultimately shaped our reality?

This idea of a false reality is brought up in the Republic, a book written by Plato, the mentor to Aristotle, possibly the few most prominent figures in ancient greek philosophy. The allegory of the cave is a section of the book presenting a dialogue between Glaucon and Socrates, Plato's brother and mentor respectively. It was there, the topic of simulacra was brought up. An analogy was discussed where people were born with chains chained upon their neck, forcing them to only see shadows. These shadows were their reality up to the point where their chains were released. Another analogy by Alejandro Jodorowsky conveys similar ideas: "Birds born in a cage think flying is an illness." These ideas transcend to morality as well. Our morals are basically fabrics of our current reality. The environment, the reality we are raised in determines our very morals. However, a change in our environment and reality would lead to a change in our very morals: a cause and effect relationship. Yet all this depends on how the recipient perceives the change in reality. Which leads us back to the main point that morality is simply the general acceptance of social approval. When a person performs an action, he assumes he's asking himself if this action is right or wrong, when he is ultimately asking if his actions are deemed appropriate by society.

Albert Camus also explores a similar idea through his concept of a philosophical suicide. He explains that there is philosophical suicide where a person gives up on life and simply takes that 'leap of faith' and doing so he will never truly live. If we blindly follow these set of rules and simply believe whatever society tells us to do, we are ultimately 'surviving' life and not living it. The same idea is applied to morality; if we simply assume right and wrong is based on society's view on the subject matter, we are simply conforming to societal's norms and hence achieving philosophical suicide. There are exceptions to these ideas; mainly people who simply rebel against society, people who are fixated not to be assimilated into the system, people who desire to be different and themselves: eccentrics.

'Perhaps a lunatic was simply a minority of one', a quote by George Orwell that had really struck me. In many of my essays, I have often spoken particularly about this group of people: the eccentrics of society. They first appeared in my General Paper exam and have since attained high-levels of respect from me. These people strive to be different, they don't wish to be forced into a society where they have to conform to fit into it. These people do odd and unusual things because those quirks of theirs are what defines them and by no means are they afraid to showcase any of those quirks. But ultimately, these people are happy, happy being themselves. They don't follow any fixed set of moral or societal rules, they simply do 'different' things because it's those 'different' things that help define who they are. To accept being rejected by society and to simply be themselves is a task that is so difficult and heartbreaking to achieve. You are being alienated and cast-out on a daily basis, with every whisper and mumble used possibly to humiliate you. The task may be difficult and overbearing, but the results so wholesome and beautiful. These people are happy, and that happiness defines them. They don't have to think if their actions are deemed appropriate because they simply don't care. That's the end goal of life, isn't it? To truly and honestly tell yourself you have lived life happy.

Ultimately, life's end goal would be happiness. We don't need to know if we lived life right or wrong; society is responsible for that. The question we should ask is are we gonna let society knead us into some kind of sick machine produced with algorithms and equations to determine right from wrong; or are we gonna be happy and more importantly, ourselves.