The Vegan Trolley Problem - not a problem for all sentient beings

Religious Vegetarianism, like the Seventh-day Adventist Church and the Utilitarian Philosophy are the two pillars of the philosophy for Veganism. Utilitarianism is a version of consequentialism, which states that the consequences of any action are the only standard of right and wrong, good and bad, pleasure and pain etc. According to Peter Singer, sentient beings have to be included when acting.

The central argument in Peter Singer's book Animal Liberation, is an expansion of the utilitarian concept that "the greatest good of the greatest number" is the only measure of good or ethical behaviour. Singer believes that there is no reason not to apply this principle to other animals, arguing that the boundary between human and "animal" is completely arbitrary.

There is a lot of criticism about Utilitarianism. It is e.g. impossible to precisely predict the consequences and they are inherently unknowable. Another idea of this normative Philosophy is the duty of the decision maker (Agent) to put his own interest on side. The well-being of strangers counts just as much as that of friends, family or self. And this idea is contrary to other Philosophies. E.g. Ethical egoism is the normative ethical position that moral agents ought to act in their own self-interest. 

A thought experiment - the Trolley Problem

The trolley problem is a thought experiment as an ethical dilemma of whether to sacrifice one person to save a larger number of persons. 

In the following I will add another version to this thought experiment, by taking Peter Singer's words and take his idea to extent this thought experiment with sentient beings.

Let's start with the original description of the thought experiment, adjusted by using sentient being instead of the word person.

The most basic version of the dilemma, known as "Bystander at the Switch" or "Switch", goes:

There is a runaway trolley barrelling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people sentient beings tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are A sentient being is standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you the sentient being pulls this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you as the sentient being notices (?!) that there is one person sentient being on the side track. You The sentient being has two (and only two) options:

1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people sentient beings on the main track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person sentient being.

Which is the more ethical option? Or, more simply: What is the right thing to do?

 

According to the ideas of the Utilitarian Philosophy a Vegan human must kill the one human being to save the lives of the five sentient beings.

No other sentient being will have a Problem with the Trolley Problem. It is only a ethical dilemma for a human being.

Ignoring the rights and duties of the actor

First of all, I don't think there is an arbitrary boundary between human and "animal" as the above new version of the Vegan Utilitarian Trolley Problem shows. This new version of the Trolley Problem clearly highlights the problems for the actor (agent). There is not only a decisions to be made between right and wrong. Bernard Williams points out in his criticism about Utilitarianism: moral decisions must preserve our psychological identity and integrity. We should reject any system that reduces moral decisions to a few algorithms. In my Words: Is Peter Singer actually asking us to kill a human being instead of letting five animals die?

The Vegan Philosophy diverts all the thoughts and actions away from the Vegan person towards the animals. Vegans ignore their own health. All #ExVegans (see also My YouTube playlist) will agree with this, because of their own health experiences: a plant based diet is unhealthy! 

Veganism is a form of self-enhancement. No sentient animal ever will understand what Vegans do for these animals. Vegans can only tell other humans that they are protecting animals. In doing so, Vegans feel better than Non-Vegan people. Animals cannot understand the Vegan Philosophy.

There is just not only good or bad - there is a space between good and bad. (Markus Gabriel and Gert Scobel)

The ability to cooperate as humans would not have developed as vegetarians or vegans.