The Trolley Problem Solved?

In The Trolley Problem, Judith Thomson examines various moral dilemmas presented by scenarios involving the potential harm of individuals. She does so by starting with Philippa Foot’s original Trolley Problem, in which the reader is presented with the following moral dilemma. As the driver of a trolley, the reader has to choose to let the trolley run its course and kill five people, or turn the trolley and kill only one person. Foot’s solution implies that it’s not only morally permissible for you to turn the trolley, but it can be argued that you might also be morally required to do so. However, Thomson believes that it is not as easy as it seems to adopt this solution, and she attempts to prove this by providing an alternative version of the Trolley Problem, which she calls “The Bystander at the Switch”.

According to Aristotle, the virtues are an instrumental part of achieving eudaimonia (or happiness/human fulfillment), however, they must be practiced in moderation. The Catechism of the Catholic Church also discusses virtues as being an instrumental component "in leading a morally good life" ("The Virtues") but differentiates itself from Aristotle because there is no limit to how virtuous a life a person of the church can live. The Catechism states that "The goal of a virtuous life is to become like God," ("The Virtues") and although that is an impossible task, it is encouraging people to reach for their full potential stating that no person can live too virtuously. Aristotle disagrees with this argument.

The Trolley Problem, proposed by Philippa Foot, is presented in this way, “You’re the conductor of a trolley. The brakes fail and if you do not flip the switch to make an oncoming turn, you will kill five people trapped on the tracks ahead. However, if you do flip the switch, you’ll kill one person trapped on the other set of tracks. What do you do?” (Rowe). According to utilitarianism theories, the right action would be to divert the trolley away from the five people and to the one person. However, other ethical systems, like Kantianism, may disagree with and reject this solution. The “right” and “wrong” answers are determined by perspective; one “right” answer according to one theory can be the complete wrong answer to another theory.

The complexity of the Trolley problem is one that can be resolved by unravelling the concept itself and considering the multipe possible analogies, the use of which is very important in the understanding and answering of ethical questions such as the Trolley problem . The trolley problem mainly deals with the law in relation in to morality, how public policy dictates or influences legality. Finding the most ethical solution to the problem is what is required of those who dare undertaking solving this problem

In order to achieve this final, we need to live a virtuous life according to the Golden mean, which is finding the middle grounds of the virtues we live by. Aristotle explains that we should continuously act in accordance with virtues, which are acquired from our upbringing and experiences. Because Aristotle believed in teleology, he said that by aiming our actions toward an end (happiness), our souls need to work in the way of excellence.

Judith Jarvis Thomson presents an ethical dilemma entitled The Trolley Problem in The Monist. The problem describes a situation in which a trolley car is moving quickly and out of control on a train track towards five people who are tied to the tracks; you have the power to pull a lever, change the direction of the trolley car and save those five people – at the expense of the life of one person who is on the track the car was diverted to (Thomson 1397). The choice to be made is not just about whether or not one should pull the lever though. The problem dictates a choice about whether one would kill, in the case of choosing to pull the lever to kill the one person and save the five, or letting die, in which case nothing is done and the five are killed because of the lack of action taken (Thomson 1398). Thomson believes it would be incorrect to turn the trolley and willingly choose to kill one person, rather than allow the five to die, but the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stewart Mill must be analyzed to determine whether they would agree with Thomson, or have a different view from Thomson as well as one another. When considering J.J. Thomson’s Trolley Problem, the philosophies of Kant and Mill must be fully analyzed and expressed to determine the most plausible perspective to be taken by both philosophers on the issue. There are strengths, weaknesses and criticisms of both ethical arguments, and these will be considered as well in the analysis.

The trolley problem can be expanded to discuss a number of related ethical dilemmas, all referring to the conflicts inherent in utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics. The problem with the trolley driver scenario is that the driver is faced with a choice of whether to infringe on the rights of one man (the man on the tracks) or whether to allow the trolley to crash, thereby killing the five people on board. The driver is stuck between two equally unfortunate situations, and the issue calls into question whether it is more ethical to save five lives than it is to refrain from infringing on the life on an innocent man. Inherent to the problem is the fact that it is impossible to know whether the diversion of the trolley will in fact save the five lives.

If I were the magistrate I would not have done anything differently. I agree that the magistrate did not have any other option. Why would you risk the life of an entire community for one person? Even though the man was innocent, the news shows what rioters are capable of, very chaotic, and will not stop at nothing until they get the demands they are seeking. Therefore, I would sacrifice the life of one innocent disliked man to save an entire community and maybe the life of police officers as well.

Judith Thomson presents us with two cases that argue for the same concept that, is killing one person to avoid the death of five moral or does this make the act of killing to save lives morally permissible? One case consists of a trolley that already has a pre-determined fate of a death occurring. The driver can both crash and continue to kill five people, or change the route to only kill one person instead. The case of the surgeon has the same premise and issues, but fate and morality has a much larger presence. The surgeon has five patients all in need of a specific organ and if they do not obtain these organs they will die. A healthy visitor walks in and it is proposed that the surgeon could kill the healthy individual,

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

It was Aristotle’s belief that everything, including humans, had a telos or goal in life. The end result or goal was said to be happiness or “eudaimonia”. He explained that eudaimonia was different for each person, and that each had a different idea of what it meant. Further, he said that people must do things in moderation, but at the same time do enough. The theory, of “the golden mean of moderation” was the basis to Aristotle's idea of the human telos and concluded that living a virtuous life must be the same for all

Aristotle’s theory will be discussed in full length on his theory of virtue. Now Aristotle did believe in a multitude of theories that are all based off of virtue, but also the soul. To Aristotle, virtue is an excellence, which comes after happiness and achieving our final goal. When Aristotle talks about an individual’s final goal and excellence of that

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.

Virtue ethics was written by a Greek philosopher names Aristotle. Aristotle believed that every human’s goal was happiness. Some philosophers argued that happiness only came from following a set of rules, while Aristotle argued that the best way to have happiness is to cultivate a virtuous character. The two kinds of virtues he recognized were moral virtue and intellectual virtue. The virtue that should be focused on to develop a virtuous character is moral virtue. According to Aristotle, while we are born with a capacity to be virtuous, being virtuous is like a skill that we need to learn and practice to be good at. The key element to being virtuous is being able to find the mean or right amount of our various emotions, dispositions, and actions. Aristotle wrote: “Anybody can become angry- that is easy, but to be angry with the right person and to the right degree and at the right time and for

Virtue Ethics is centred on the belief that everything has a purpose and that, when something fulfils its purpose, it is good. For example, the purpose of a knife is to cut, and so a knife that cuts well has achieved its purpose. This links in to Aristotle’s ideas about the Four Causes and the Final Cause. Plato and Aristotle agreed that the purpose of humanity was the fulfilment of flourishing, and this is known as eudaimonia. When a person has achieved eudaimonia they will be fully content with their lives and they will act morally because they want to. He referred to eudaimonia as “an end in itself”. Aristotle insists that this telos can only be achieved through the use of reason, since the ‘ergon’ (function) of reason in practice is virtue. He says: “The good