Transcription
The philosophical corners of the internet have seen the trolley problem tackled from countless angles and in countless modifications and derivations. However, the application of the trolley problem to Mormon scripture remains a relatively unexplored niche. And I am nothing if not niche. So, first things first, what is the trolley problem? Popularized by philosopher Judith Thompson in the mid-1970s, it goes a little something like this: A runaway trolley or train is in motion on a track, on course to kill five people. A bystander is in the position to divert the trolley into a different track by means of a switch or lever so that the trolley only kills one person.
To my mind, there are two key facets to the trolley problem. The first is the choice placed before the bystander. In its most basic form, it is the choice between one life and five. This weighing up of one life versus many often engages the utilitarian moral framework and an exploration of its merits and weaknesses. The second facet comes from the fact that this choice requires the bystander to either act or remain passive. This can be used to explore arguments around the extent to which one is responsible to minimize suffering when faced with an opportunity to do so. After all, some might say the bystander didn't tie the people to the tracks nor set the trolley in motion. Are they responsible at all if they just don't engage with the situation? This raises questions of the difference between doing and allowing harm. All in all, quite the moral and ethical dilemma that has spawned a vast wealth of literature on the subject.
Perhaps one of the most well-known moral dilemmas of the Book of Mormon is when Nephi is trying to decide whether to kill a drunken, defenseless man named Laban. Now, Laban did have the brass plates which contain scripture, and God had told Nephi to go and get these plates. In fact, Nephi and his brothers had already tried twice to retrieve the plates—first by asking nicely and secondly by offering to buy them. Both times they were rejected and sent on their way under threat of violence. The second time, having been robbed of the things with which they offered to buy the plates. And so, when Nephi went back for the plates for a third time and discovered Laban passed out drunk on the floor, the infamous trolley problem of 600 BC Jerusalem began: Kill Laban in order to obtain the brass plates and preserve the teachings contained therein for future generations, or do nothing and allow an entire nation to dwindle in unbelief for lack of knowledge of God's commandments.
Nephi is initially reluctant, but God presents a utilitarian argument: One man's life for an entire nation's spiritual welfare. “Behold, the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes. It is better that one man should perish than that a nation should dwindle and perish in unbelief.” Now, you could argue that God is essentially commanding a man's death so that he can be worshiped. But the rebuttal by the devoted believer to that rather glib take would likely center around the necessity for belief in order to obtain eternal salvation. In that view, it becomes one man's mortal life versus an entire nation's eternal salvation. And Nephi, when presented with this argument by God, chooses to trust that killing Laban will save the entire nation. He buys into the utilitarian argument and ends one man's life for the eternal salvation of an entire nation.
Now, of course, as we know, the entire Nephite nation dwindled and perished in unbelief anyway, meaning God wasn't true to the original parameters of the choice that he placed before Nephi. And Nephi, if he'd stopped and thought about it, would have gone on to realize that he'd killed Laban unnecessarily. Because just 8 chapters later, in 1 Nephi 12, he has a vision in which he sees his entire nation dwindle and perish in unbelief. Can you imagine Nephi turning around after that vision and saying, “Hang on, you said if I killed him, then an entire nation wouldn't dwindle and perish in unbelief. I chopped off his head to stop the thing happening which you've just shown me was going to happen anyway”? So, not only did God let Nephi believe that he would be saving a nation from unbelief and eternal torment when he, an omniscient being, would have known this was not to be the case, but God also created the trolley problem in the first place.
In reference to the drunk and vulnerable Laban, the scripture says that Nephi was told, “The Lord hath delivered him into thy hands.” God tied Laban to the tracks like a sacrificial lamb, and commanded Nephi to flip the switch. Perhaps a better way to visualize this is in a derivation of the trolley problem in which the way that the larger group of people are saved is by pushing an enormously large man off a bridge in order to derail the trolley. God put Laban on the bridge, drunk and defenseless, and told Nephi to shove him off. The work of Peter Singer linked in the description states that most people approve of flipping the switch but disapprove of pushing the man off the bridge. It would seem the requirement to push a man off a bridge makes the question of doing versus allowing harm far more visceral. It's one thing to do harm by the flick of a switch. It is another, Singer's work would indicate, to put hands on someone in order to do them harm. Similarly, had Nephi had an opportunity to cause Laban's death by a more removed means, he may not have struggled so much. But instead, Nephi beheaded Laban. Quite how he managed to use Laban's clothes as a disguise when they were surely soaked in blood is a matter for another time.
But if we can just go back to the beginning of verse 13 for a moment: “Behold, the Lord slayeth the wicked to bring forth his righteous purposes.” If that's true, then why did the Lord not slay Laban? Why not cause the drunkenness he put upon Laban to cause him to trip and snap his neck? Why get Nephi involved at all? Was it perhaps some kind of loyalty test for Nephi? You can let me know your answer to this in the comments, as well as dropping any suggestions you have for Mormon trolley problems you'd like me to explore in the future.
Now, before we wrap up this episode, I want to say a huge thank you to everyone who has sent their well-wishes following the stroke I suffered recently. That's probably the last you'll hear about it from me unless it's strictly relevant. But it would feel wrong of me not to thank everyone who's reached out and particularly thank those who signed up as either channel members or monthly supporters through donor box. Life feels quite uncertain at the moment, but you have helped to add a degree of certainty. And speaking of certainty, if you definitely know what you would have done in Nephi's situation or what you would do when faced with the original trolley problem, I want to hear all about it in the comments. And I'll leave you with this final thought: I can understand from a certain point of view that one man's death against the eternal suffering of tens of thousands of people seems like the right thing to do. But how does this stand in light of the doctrine of baptism? Meaning that if Nephi never got the plates and the people never received the commandments, they could have just been taught them after death and attained salvation anyway. Just something to think about.