KLOET.NET

God on the Trolley Problem

Jun 12, 2025

Table of Contents

  1. Against Moral Cowardice in Ethics
  2. The Critical Distinction: Trolley vs. Surgeon
  3. Biblical Foundation: The Sanctity and Equality of Life
  4. The Moral Architecture of Action vs Inaction
  5. The Double Effect Principle in Scripture
  6. Biblical Precedent for Protective Action
  7. The Clear Biblical Answer
  8. Objections Answered
  9. The Cost of Moral Clarity
  10. Conclusion: Biblical Decisiveness

Against Moral Cowardice in Ethics

Too many theological and philosophical treatments of the trolley problem end with unsatisfying hand-waving about "complexity" and "mystery." This intellectual cowardice masquerades as humility but actually abandons the very purpose of ethical inquiry. When Scripture commands us to "test everything; hold fast what is good" (1 Thessalonians 5:21), it expects us to reach conclusions, not retreat into endless qualification.

The Bible provides clear moral principles. Our task is to apply them decisively, not to hide behind pious-sounding evasions about divine mystery. While God's ways are higher than ours, He has revealed sufficient moral truth for us to navigate difficult decisions.

king solomon and the baby

The Critical Distinction: Trolley vs. Surgeon

The power of the trolley problem becomes clear when contrasted with a related scenario: the surgeon problem. Imagine a doctor who could save five dying patients by harvesting organs from one healthy visitor to the hospital. Few people—even committed utilitarians—would endorse this action, despite the identical mathematical outcome of saving five lives at the cost of one.

This contrast reveals that our moral intuitions recognize a fundamental difference between redirecting an existing threat (the trolley) and creating a new threat (killing the healthy patient). This distinction is not merely psychological but reflects deeper moral truths that align with biblical principles.

Biblical Foundation: The Sanctity and Equality of Life

Every human being is created "in the image of God" (Genesis 1:27), establishing the inherent, equal dignity of each person. However, this truth alone cannot resolve the trolley problem, as both the five and the one possess equal dignity. Those who stop here engage in exactly the kind of analytical paralysis that plagues modern ethics.

The imago Dei does establish that human life cannot be reduced to mere numerical calculation, but it does not prohibit all life-and-death decisions. David's warriors faced such choices in battle, and Jesus himself acknowledged that sometimes "greater love" requires laying down one's life for others (John 15:13).

The Moral Architecture of Action vs. Inaction

The sixth commandment states "You shall not murder" (Exodus 20:13), using the Hebrew word ratsach, which specifically refers to the unlawful killing of an innocent person. This commandment creates an asymmetry between killing and allowing death that is crucial to resolving the trolley problem.

Scripture consistently recognizes this distinction. When David had opportunity to kill Saul, he refused, declaring "The Lord forbid that I should do this thing to my lord" (1 Samuel 24:6). Yet David did not consider himself obligated to prevent every possible harm to Saul. The Bible distinguishes between the positive duty to preserve life when possible and the negative duty not to take innocent life.

The Apostle Paul reinforces this principle: "And why not say, 'Let us do evil that good may come'? Their condemnation is just" (Romans 3:8). This passage explicitly rejects consequentialist reasoning that justifies evil means by good ends.

The Double Effect Principle in Scripture

The doctrine of double effect, while formalized by later theologians, has biblical roots. When Joshua conquered Jericho, the deaths of Canaanite civilians were foreseen but not intended—the goal was establishing God's people in the promised land (Joshua 6). Similarly, when Jesus cleansed the temple, he foresaw but did not intend the economic disruption to merchants (Matthew 21:12-13).

Applied to the trolley problem: pulling the lever intends to save five lives, with the one death being a foreseen but unintended consequence of redirecting the trolley. In contrast, the surgeon problem requires intending the death of the healthy patient as a means to save others.

jesus cleansing the temple

Biblical Precedent for Protective Action

The parable of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) demonstrates that Christians have positive obligations to protect others when possible. The priest and Levite who "passed by on the other side" are condemned not for causing harm, but for failing to prevent it when they could.

When Mordecai urged Esther to intercede for the Jewish people, he argued that "if you keep silent at this time, relief and deliverance will rise for the Jews from another place, but you and your father's house will perish" (Esther 4:14). Scripture expects decisive action to protect innocent life when possible.

David's decision to fight Goliath exemplifies this principle. He could have remained safely with the supplies, but chose to act against a threat to God's people (1 Samuel 17). The key difference from the surgeon problem is that David redirected an existing threat rather than creating a new one.

The Clear Biblical Answer

Based on these principles, Christian ethics provides a clear answer to the trolley problem: pull the lever.

Here's why:

  1. The distinction between killing and letting die: Redirecting the trolley does not violate the prohibition against murder because you are not the primary cause of death—the runaway trolley is. You are redirecting an existing lethal threat, not creating one.
  2. The principle of double effect: Your intention is to save five lives, not to kill one. The single death is a foreseen but unintended consequence.
  3. The positive duty to preserve life: Like the Good Samaritan, you have an obligation to act when you can prevent greater loss of life.
  4. Proportionality: Saving five lives at the cost of one represents a proportionate response to the crisis.

The surgeon problem fails these tests because it requires intending the death of an innocent person and creating a new threat rather than redirecting an existing one.

Objections Answered

"But you're still choosing who dies": No, the trolley itself is choosing who dies. You are choosing who lives. The distinction matters both morally and causally.

"What if the one person is more valuable?": The hypothetical specifies only numerical differences. Adding variables about relative worth changes the problem fundamentally and distracts from the core moral principles.

"This seems too calculating": Biblical wisdom involves careful moral reasoning. Solomon's request for "an understanding mind to govern your people, that I may discern between good and evil" (1 Kings 3:9) suggests that God expects us to think clearly about difficult decisions.

The Cost of Moral Clarity

Taking a definitive position risks being wrong, but moral paralysis guarantees being useless. Scripture calls us to "be wise as serpents and innocent as doves" (Matthew 10:16), combining shrewd analysis with pure motives.

Those who retreat into endless qualifications about complexity and mystery may sound sophisticated, but they abandon their duty to provide moral guidance. When Paul wrote to the Corinthians about eating meat offered to idols, he could have simply said "it's complicated." Instead, he provided clear principles for decision-making (1 Corinthians 8).

paul writing to the corinthians

Conclusion: Biblical Decisiveness

The trolley problem reveals that Christian ethics, properly understood, can provide clear guidance even in extreme scenarios. The biblical framework distinguishes between redirecting existing threats and creating new ones, between intended and merely foreseen consequences, and between active duties to preserve life and negative duties not to take it.

Pull the lever. Save the five. Mourn the one. Trust that God judges not only our actions but our hearts, and that He who "works all things according to the counsel of his will" (Ephesians 1:11) can use even our difficult decisions for His purposes.

This is not moral simplism but moral clarity—the kind Scripture expects from those who claim to follow the One who is "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6). In a world desperate for ethical guidance, Christians must have the courage to apply biblical principles decisively, even when the stakes are life and death.