The Trolley Problem Essay
The Trolley Problem is set up in two parts. The first part of this problem puts the reader in a passive position to choose between shoving a large person onto the track causing one person to die to save the five other people and refraining and doing nothing would allow the five to die and the one person to live. The second part of this scenario would put Frank in a very personal position to choose to do something about the situation at hand, or to let five people die; or deliberately push a large person to save the five. This would seem like a very hard choice for most people. The moral issue in question is to look at a large person as the answer to stop the trolley. If the large person is pushed in front of the trolley to save the five people, one would be making a conscience decision to end someone’s life. I will use Kant’s views of how this decision would seem to me to be morally impermissible, by deontologist ethics, and psychologist points of view.
I believe Kant would see the scenario as impermissible because of his views on the categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is to never act in such a way that a maxim should become a universal law. One’s duty is always a connection between moral laws. Kant believes that you can choose to do things or not to do things. What is right for a universal law? Then Kant argues that morality is based neither on principle of utility, nor on a law of nature but simply on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and then we follow our own reason. So, to push a large person in front of a trolley would be using someone as a means to get an end. Kant feels we should not use people as a means, no matter what the feeling. Kant’s formula for humanity is that one would act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end. So Kant’s key idea here is not to use someone as a tool, even though your goal would
I believe Kant would see the scenario as impermissible because of his views on the categorical imperative. Kant’s categorical imperative is to never act in such a way that a maxim should become a universal law. One’s duty is always a connection between moral laws. Kant believes that you can choose to do things or not to do things. What is right for a universal law? Then Kant argues that morality is based neither on principle of utility, nor on a law of nature but simply on human reason. According to Kant, reason tells us what we ought to do, and then we follow our own reason. So, to push a large person in front of a trolley would be using someone as a means to get an end. Kant feels we should not use people as a means, no matter what the feeling. Kant’s formula for humanity is that one would act in such a way as to treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of another, always at the same time as an end. So Kant’s key idea here is not to use someone as a tool, even though your goal would
Cited: Greene, Joshua. "William James Hall Home Page." The Cognitive Neuroscience of Moral Judgment. N.p., 2008 Dec. 1. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. <http://www.wjh.harvard.edu/>. Deontologist Ethics." (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy). N.p., 21 Nov. 2007. Web. 07 Nov. 2012. <http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/plato/>. Di Nucci, Ezio, The Doctrine of Double Effect and the Trolley Problem .N.p. September 20, 2011.Web 07 Nov 2012. http://ssrn.com/abstract=1930832.