Utilitarianism And Deontology And The Trolley Problem

“Deontology is a moral theory that emphasizes one’s duty to do a particular action just because the action, itself, is inherently right and not through any other sorts of calculations – such as the consequences of the action” (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). In many aspects deontology is contrasted with utilitarianism. Deontology is based upon principle and does not calculate the consequences (Boylan, 2009, p. 171). Deontology attracts those seeking a stronger moral attraction because it refers to commanding rather than commending and commanding is a stronger structure (Boylan, 2009, p. 172). The

When faced with adversity and difficult dilemmas, people have different ways to figure out what to do; some people make pros and cons lists while other people just go with their gut. Ethical theories like utilitarianism and deontology, can aid people in making these difficult choices. Utilitarianism focuses on the results of your actions, rather than the intent behind them, as the goal of the theory is the create the greatest good for the greatest amount people. On the other hand, deontology follows a strict moral code concentrating on the right or moral action rather than the results it yields. While utilitarianism and deontology focus on different aspects of decision making, the effect and the intent respectively, they often yield the same result; more often than not the more ethical decision leads to the greater result. These ethical theories are both used in Snow Falling on Cedars by David Gunderson where they both agree on the topics, yielding the same results.

There are several theories that try to explain the morality of the actions; however, two stand out. the first is deontology, and the other one is utilitarianism. The former follow the idea that the consequences of you action hold no importance in what we ought to do. But rather, some actions are morally wrong or good by itself. The latter follows an opposite view in which the consequences of an action are what it makes an action moral. Specially, if that action produce the greatest happiness over unhappiness. In this essay I will focus on two Utilitarianism ramifications, act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. They both agree that consequences must be the greatest factor in deciding what we ought to do. Nonetheless they have one big difference. Rule Utilitarianism generalize acts and recreate the consequences of a rule. If the consequences are ultimately favoring, then it is morally right. By way of contrast, Act Utilitarianism evaluate each action individually, and similar situation would have different outcomes depending on the situation. There is no universal rule unlike rule utilitarianism.

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?

In this paper, I will discuss various ethical courses of action during ethical dilemmas. I will be examining how utilitarians and deontologists use different approaches to solve ethical dilemmas, by citing the text “Doing Ethics: Moral Reasoning and Contemporary Issues” and views of philosophers such as John Stuart Mill, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham. Using these, I will develop an argument for why I think the most ethical course of action varies from person to person, and why this is as a result of flaws in both utilitarianism and deontology

The trolley problem; the choice is yours to decide whether or not the lives of five people are saved by the sacrifice of another person. This moral paradox mirrors real-life implications in politics, society and war. In terms of killing and letting die: are we morally obligated to kill in order to save a larger group of people? It may seem that the moral standings of killing and letting die are the same as a life for lives seems completely rational. However, killing and letting die are completely separate identities as they operate on distinct plateaus of the human mind. Ultimately, killing is morally worse than letting

If you have it set that utilitarianism is your ethical standard, then by definition the best course of action is the one that maximizes utility or happiness. Again, let’s say that you see the collision that is going to occur, will your car be able to sense that you know this person? If you have utilitarianism dialed down to maximize your own happiness, the car would take the path with the 5 people knowing you will be less affected by killing 5 random people as opposed to this 1 person that you know. On the other hand, if you have utilitarianism dialed all the way up and therefore it is maximizing the overall happiness, then the car would choose the path of killing the 1 person instead of the 5. This way, less people have been killed and therefore less family and friends have been affected, right? What if the 5 people all happened to single and had no family left, just friends? Let’s say this one person had a big family, children, and plenty of friends, what then? Would the car setting be able to take these things into account. In this situation, maybe the car would rather take the path with the 5 people because they wouldn’t be missed as much as the 1 person. Less people would suffer over the death of the 5 than the death of the 1 and therefore this decision has maximized overall happiness. Maybe you disagree with me or think that my examples are too extreme. The author of this article used

Though knowledge of ethical theory is not mandatory in dealing with moral dilemmas in healthcare, such theories can assist in making difficult decisions (Seedhouse, 2009). Case A is chosen to illustrate the utilization of the ethical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. In this case, Pam proposes that biopsy results be deliberately withheld from John until after his holiday if results show cancer spread.

The word ‘treasure’ can have many meanings and interpretations. It is a word mainly used to describe highly valued items. The word is usually associated with pirates because they are always on the hunt for the booty, and in this case booty is treasure. We resemble pirates in a way because pirates are set out to find the most valuable gems around the world. We are humans who are trying to find out the meaning of our existence, wanting to get the most out of life, wanting the nicest things, and seeking our treasure. The treasure I am talking about in this paper is our heart. We should have some time in our lives where we are able to reflect upon ourselves and try to figure out where our treasure lies. I am going to start off by saying my treasure

The trolley problem addresses an issue in ethics. There is a trolley running down on the railway, and there are five people tied up on the railway. The trolley is running toward them. You have a lever that switches the trolley to the other side of the railway, however, there is one person tied up on the other side as well. You have two options: 1) Do not pull the lever and the trolley kills five people, or 2) Pull the lever and kill one person only. For this issue, we will be using the Golden rule, treat others the same way you want to be treated, to examine the ethics behind this trolley problem.

Jeremy Bentham said in his “Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation”, that “the rarest of all human qualities is consistency” believing that people were rational actors who understood that the appropriate action was to cause “the greatest happiness of the greatest number” (Bentham, 1789). However, human beings are often far from consistent in their adherence to utilitarianism, falling often to the emotional, deontological response. When faced with the choice of pushing one person to their death to save the lives of five people, would you be able to make that decision? This scenario makes up the ubiquitous footbridge dilemma, formulated specifically to bring an individual’s automatic, emotional responses and rational, conscious

The Trolley Problem is a thought experiment proposed by Philippa Foot. In this problem, different scenarios are set and the purpose of it is to arrive to the best possible outcome based on the decisions taken. How would an act utilitarian like Jeremy Bentham answer to the Trolley Problem? In this presentation, I will explain if he would give the wrong answer to the questions raised by the problem.

The Trolley Case is an ethical thought experiment that seeks to find the “right” solution in killing people. This thought experiment explains that there is a train coming down the tracks on course to run right into five people. You stand next to a lever which can switch the tracks so that only one person will die. The only options you have are to do nothing and allow five people to die, or pull the lever so that only one person will die. In Trolley Case 2, you can save five people from the train by pushing a large man off of a bridge, and into the path of the train. This man would be large enough to stop the train, thus saving the other five people’s lives.

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.

1. Like others, I would pull the switch to divert the trolley to save five people. Not that the one man deserves to die to save the other five, but rather because with the situation at hand saving five is reasonable than saving one. That being said, I think it is morally permissible to divert the trolley to lose one life and gain five lives. The Footbridge Dilemma seems to be complicated than the Switch Dilemma in that you have to consciously kill one person who was not in the picture, to save the six people on the track. Saving six lives sounds great. The problem here is the manner in which they were saved. What if I was that fat man, would I want to be thrown down onto the tracks? The