The Trolley Case : An Ethical Thought Experiment

The Trolley Dilemma is a scenario where a train heading straight toward five men working on the tracks, have no idea the train is heading toward them, and nowhere to go. It would appear that death is inevitable. On another track, there is another worker all working alone. He too has no idea the train is coming. You are standing next to the lever that can switch the tracks. What would you do? Would you do nothing, resulting in killing five people, who might not know what hit them, or do you pull the lever, diverting the train, killing only one which allows the five to survive?

In this paper, I will explicate how a Utilitarian and a Kantian would understand the Trolley Problem and describe why I consider the Utilitarian approach to fare better in the case of the Trolley Problem. On one hand, a Utilitarian, a believer in the philosophy of Utilitarianism, believes that a morally admirable action is one that helps the maximum number of people. A Kantian, on the other hand, is a believer and follower of the Kantian ethics, which fundamentally preach that the correctness or wrongness of one’s actions depends on if one carries out one’s duty, and not on the consequences of one’s actions. In order to further understand the perspectives of these two philosophies, I will explain how they would comprehend the Trolley Problem, which is, essentially, a theoretical moral predicament where a trolley is speeding down a railway track and five people are tied to the track and a bystander has two options: either pull a lever, divert the train to an alternate railway track with one person on it and kill that one person and save five people, and thus intentionally commit homicide, or the bystander doesn’t pull the lever and lets five people die, therefore submissively allowing five deaths.

The Trolley Dilemma is a scenario where a train heading straight toward five men working on the tracks, have no idea the train is heading toward them, and nowhere to go. It would appear that death is inevitable. On another track there is another worker all working alone. He too has no idea the train is coming. You are standing next to the lever that can switch the tracks. What would you do? Would you do nothing, resulting in killing five people, who might not know what hit them, or do you pull the lever, diverting the train, killing only one which allows the five to survive?

Philosophy consists of two major theories which aim to deny and validate moral rules and principles: deontology and utilitarianism ethics. These two perspectives give philosophy its wide range of concepts and decisions to frame our lives, giving structure to what we believe is right and wrong. More often than not, these concepts bring argument to what has already been set in stone by tough, controversial philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham due to the nature of the topics and sensitivity they cause. In this essay, I look to discuss the trolley example in relation to deontology and utilitarianism; what each of these concepts tells us about the best way to behave in the example, and concluding with which concept is right?

Utilitarianism poses an issue when it is used as the sole method for decision making. I do not agree with it at all. There is no way to truly calculate or measure the outcome of a situation. It involves setting aside your values to make a decision based on what will

This statement is underlining support to Singer’s main claim. He continues by saying, “If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have…saved the child’s life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money…” By adding this statement, Singer is inviting readers to deeply contemplate moral duties. Singer demonstrates an appeal to ethos by introducing himself as a utilitarian philosopher. He starts by defining his label.

From this point of view, it does not appear that risking the lives of the firefighters and the public to attempt to save one person is a valid moral decision. However, the utilitarian maintains the actions should produce the greatest overall utility, determined by weighing consequences, acts, rules, and practice (Hinman, 2013). The most common version of utilitarianism is always to perform the action that will maximize the greatest results or act utilitarianism (Hinman, 2013).

To begin with, the Trolley case is an experiment where you are put into a situation where you are on a runaway trolley where the breaks do not work and you are headed for five people and you can either hit the five people, killing them or save them by turning the trolley hitting one person and killing him. There is another scenario called the Footbridge case where you are in the same situation but in order to save the five people you have to push a fat man off a bridge stopping the trolley. This is very interesting experiment that questions human ethics and morality. It makes you think whether or not it is morally permissible to turn the trolley. I argue that there is an important moral difference between the Trolley case and the Footbridge case because there is a difference between letting someone die to save people and killing someone to save people.

This was a interesting philosophy experiment. The preliminary questions were about a person’s moral reasoning.

To begin with, let’s take a look at the consequences of the first Trolley Case. Consequentialism states that each and every consequence (people, animals, and situations affected) must be considered, so the moral thing to do would be to pull the lever, directing the train toward Man A. Pulling the lever results in saving five lives, which outweighs one life. If each person involved is cared for by ten people, then fifty less people will be negatively affected by their death, versus the ten that would be negatively affected by death of Man A. I agree with the decision to pull the lever in Case 1, because the action simply redirects harm to the benefit of a larger number of people. It was a decision for two parties that whose lives were threatened, and four net lives have been saved, versus negative four.

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory that judges an action on its outcomes and aims to maximize happiness. This means finding the action that generates the “greatest good for the greatest number”.

The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch

Utilitarianism is a consequentialist theory, as explained by the philosopher Mill. Given several choices, a utilitarian would pick the morally correct choice by using the Greatest Happiness Principle (487). By looking at whether the consequences of an action will produce the greater happiness for the greater number of people than another action would, one can

Utilitarianism is the ethical belief that the happiness of the greatest number of people is the greatest good. Jeremy Betham and John Stuart Mill are two philosophers that were leading advocates for the utilitarianism that we study today. In order to understand the basis of utilitarianism, one must know what happiness is. John Stuart Mill defines happiness as the intended pleasure and absence of pain while unhappiness is pain and the privation of pleasure. Utilitarians feel the moral obligation to maximize pleasure for not only themselves, but for as many people as possible. All actions can be determined as right or wrong based on if they produce the maximum amount of happiness. The utilitarian belief that all actions can be determined as right or wrong based only on their repercussions connects utilitarianism to consequentialism. Consequentialism is the belief that an action can be determined morally right or wrong based on its consequences. Just like any other belief system, utilitarianism faces immense amount of praise and criticism.

1 Explain the Trolley Driver, Bystander at the Switch, Fat Man, Transplant, & Hospital scenarios discussed in the "The Trolley Problem" reading. In doing so, address what the ethical issue(s) are in each of these scenarios.