Would You Kill the Fat Man? [pdf]
The question&#x27;s origins are philosophical but the answer is rooted in biology.<p>The answer is this: morality is not a rational set of rules. It appears this way but that is an illusion. The illusion feels so real that many people believe morality is 100 percent learned and attempt to codify it into a logical framework. The existence of this moral dilemma of the fat man is proof that morality is not consistent nor is it learned and that all attempts at codification are in vain.<p>Morality at its essence is a set of random competing instincts making us feel certain things are &quot;right&quot; and other things are &quot;wrong&quot;. Usually these instincts are aligned but certain edge case situations cause our moral instincts to become at odds. The moral dilemma of the fat man is one such edge case.<p>We have one instinct telling us that thou shalt not directly kill or push the man off the bridge. We have another instinct telling us there&#x27;s a logical numbers game of saving more people if we push the fat man. When those two instincts are at odds it causes this moral dilemma. We will not push the fat man but we will pull the lever. The logical consequence is the same but our instincts lead us to prefer one over the other.<p>These instincts were not created to make sense. They were evolved via natural selection in the plains of prehistoric Africa. For survival humans never needed a logically consistent set of rules to survive... they dont even need to understand the rules. They just need a set of behaviors that will help them survive. And in the end that is all morality is. Just a set of random behaviors that exist because of natural selection.<p>Many people are actually vehemently  against this reality. They wish to think of morality as a higher plane of thinking with internal logical consistency. They are wrong. Morality is an arbitrary set of inconsistent rules that directs human behavior for the sole purpose of survival. All else is illusion.<p>This question of the fat man exists because we misunderstood an aspect of reality. We misinterpreted the true nature of what morality is and we thus asked an irrelevant question thinking that it&#x27;s some sort of deep philosophical mystery.