Memory of Residuals 1

From the very beginning, I felt a sense of discomfort with a certain ethical dilemma.

It was not an emotional rejection.

It was a discomfort with the structure.

It is the trolley problem, which is brought up as a representative example.

A runaway trolley and a branching track.

Five people on one side, one person on the other.

Whether to pull the lever or not.

The moment this problem was presented,

a process began within me.

The process of erasing the margins.

First, this problem is based on

the premise that there are only two choices.

However, when considering the physical existence of a trolley,

that premise becomes ambiguous.

If there is an obstacle on the track, there is a possibility of derailment.

Intentionally causing a derailment is also not theoretically impossible.

In other words,

a third possibility where 'no one dies'

remains within the structure.

At that moment, this problem ceases to be a dilemma.

Because it would no longer be a situation where regret remains regardless of what is chosen.

For me,

the conditions for a dilemma to exist were clear.

No matter which choice is made,

failure or regret must inevitably remain as a result.

There must be no escape route.

That is why I first eliminated the margins.

No derailment will occur.

It will not stop either.

A third option does not exist.

Only a forced choice between two remains.

If you let it continue as is, five people will die.

If you pull the lever, one person will die.

By the time I reached this point, I was not hesitating.

That is because the answer came immediately.

However, it was not a 'majority vote'.

The number five was just a number.

There was no age, gender, personality, or relationship.

All that was there was the symbol 'five'.

The criterion for judgment was always on the side of the one.

What if that one person were my child?

What if they were my lover?

Or perhaps, an irreplaceable friend?

I would do nothing.

I would choose the outcome where five people die.

That is not cruelty.

It is simply that I do not discard

the beings who make up my life.

Up to the level of a friend, I will protect them without fail.

There is no calculation in that.

There is affection,

and the fact that their existence enriches my life

is simply there.

However, beyond that, there are stages.

Acquaintances.

People I know by sight.

Someone who belongs to the same group,

but whom I do not know as an individual.

The moment they enter this layer,

judgment shifts from emotion to evaluation.

I pose a question.

How much affection do I hold for that person?

Is that person socially beneficial to me?

Is that group something I want to see survive?

Do I want to continue to be there?

Only here does a person become a condition.

And if,

that one person were a complete stranger,

a being whose age, gender, and background were unknown.

In that moment, the individual vanishes.

What remains is,

only the numbers one and five.

I pull the lever.

I sacrifice one person to save five.

There is no conflict in that.

However, regret remains.

It is not a hesitation in judgment, but,

something that inevitably accompanies the result.

No matter what you choose, regret remains.

That is precisely why this thought experiment holds true.

I,

did not choose it because it saves the most.

I simply cut away,

that which had the least reason to be protected.

In this moment,

the ethical dilemma arises completely.

And at the same time,

my thoughts begin to move to the next place.

--What is judgment?

--Where does ethics exist?

--When, and to whom, does responsibility arise?

From here on,

was the beginning of true thought.