Here is an interesting analogy between the unequal sharing of food at a dinner and the trolley problem, highlighting the ethical dilemma of wealth inequality and exploitation.
Consider a grand dinner where representatives from all walks of life gather. When asked if it would be justifiable for someone to deny others the best foods, a unanimous consensus emerges: such an act would be ethically unacceptable. This unanimous rejection mirrors the moral intuition behind the reluctance to push the fat man off the bridge to stop the trolley. It highlights our shared understanding that using someone merely as a means to an end is fundamentally wrong.
Now, shift our focus to a different scenario. Imagine a society where a select few accumulate vast wealth by underpaying and exploiting their workers. These capitalists enjoy the finest foods and luxuries, while their employees struggle to afford even basic necessities. Strangely, some individuals find this situation morally acceptable, akin to pulling a lever to drop the fat man onto the tracks (benefiting some, disadvantaging him) without physically touching him.
The subtlety lies in the indirect nature of the harm caused. Unlike the direct act of denying someone the best foods at the dinner table, the link between the exploitation of workers and the deprivation they face is obscured. This disconnect allows society to tolerate what would otherwise be deemed unacceptable. This ethical paradox challenges us to confront the underlying principles guiding our moral judgments. It urges us to question why we find some forms of harm acceptable when they are veiled in complexity, even though the fundamental violation of human dignity remains the same.”
The above was generated by ChatGPT 3.5 after giving it the following prompt:
“Construct a philosophical argument analogous to the trolley problem, using, as the ethical dilemma under examination, the unequal sharing of food at a dinner in place of pushing a fat man off a bridge. Following is my draft attempt. See if it works.
— In the first scenario representatives of all members of a society – from vagabonds to billionaires – are invited to a dinner. People are asked if it would be fair for anyone – by force or guile – to deny anyone else the best foods (such as the best wines and cuts of meat). The likely answer is no. It would be entirely unethical to act in that way at a dinner. And even if some people did not care about it being unethical, everyone would recognise it would be unacceptable and would refrain. This is akin to pushing the fat man off the bridge with your hands to stop the train. No one would do it.
In the second scenario, people are asked if it is fair for some individuals to be allowed to earn so much – by paying so little to those who work for them – so as to be able to afford the best foods etc., whilst those who work for them not only cannot afford the best foods but may not be able to afford to buy sufficient food, even of a poor quality. This is akin to the scenario of pulling a leaver to deliberately drop the fat man on to the track to stop the trolley, without having to physically touch him. Some people answer that they would do it, even though the fat man is being used as means to an end as in the first scenario, which most people would not condone. The fact that the enrichment of a few capitalist bosses from the poorly paid labour of their workers does not directly manifest in the deprivation of good food etc., from those workers permits us to accept what would otherwise be unacceptable should we be faced with it at the table.
— That’s the general gist of my argument. Does it work? Can you make a better try at it?”