#though not every ethical dilemma is a trolley problem! it just got famous because of the good place and because of the memes

[nobodysuspectsthebutterfly]

Always a fascinating ethics question.

(Mind you it's less of a trolley problem and more of a Cornelian dilemma, because every solution has a detrimental effect on someone - leave the wildlings and they get wighted; move them across the Wall, and they may attack the NW and the people of the north. Whereas a trolley problem only would apply if taking the Weeper (and other wildlings) out of the way of the Others thus diverts the Others onto different innocent victims. The Others being the trolley in this case; they and the wildlings can't be the trolley at the same time, ethics questions don't work that way even if you shift perspectives.)

Anyway, yeah, Jon's priorities are basically like “we need to save them - yes all of them - and we'll figure out what to do with them (and protect the innocents) afterwards.” Whereas much of the NW reluctantly accepts the saving bit, but thinks “what to do with them” should be the first priority. Especially with winter coming. Which alas brings up its own ethical dilemmas on who gets food first when stockpiles are low...

the question of Jon letting the Wildlings through is such a fantastic moral dilemma. And the argument against it, that they are dangerous, is just as brilliantly written. Is there a point at which you could decide a person is worthy of death? Because not let the Weeper through is to leave him for dead.

It’s a divided version of the classic trolley problem. From one perspective, the choice seems really easy: Jon could do nothing and let the train run over everyone north of the Wall, or he could act and let the people come south, avoiding the train.

Except there’s a second perspective to the problem layered on top of this one. From the perspective of the Northmen south of the Wall, the trolley problem looks like this: Jon could do nothing and everyone south of the Wall gets to avoid the wildlings, their hated raiding enemy, or Jon could act and send the hated Wildlings south of the Wall directly towards the people he said he would protect. Their version of the problem also looks easy, but with the reverse outcome.

So to them, it feels like Jon is choosing the wellbeing of the Wildlings over the wellbeing of the Northmen. Though Jon of course believes the two can coexist.

And their argument would go like this: the Weeper is a killer, shouldn’t we draw the line at who we let through? But of course the question really is: at what point can we decide that someone’s life is worth less than our own?