The trolley problems
The Trolley Problems
The Trolley Problems
Many times in an individual’s life they are faced with difficult decisions. These decisions create domino effect and no one decision is isolated to only the current situation. In the case of the trolley problem, the decision to be made will result in death. Either five individuals will die, or only one will have to lose his life. In the first scenario the act of sacrificing one comes at the pull of a lever and in the second you must push him onto the tracks. Would both scenarios have the same answer for you? Would one be more difficult to answer than the other? There is only one right answer, depending on your ethical stand and the following examines the trolley problems from the view point of Kantian and Utilitarian ethics to determine how each theory applies, and what the answer would be according to the ethical standards set forth by each.
Kantian ethical practices mandate that an individual cannot chose a course of action that causes them to become immoral (Wall, 2008). Therefore, when following Kantian ethics, the answer to both of the trolley problems is, no. If the individual were to divert the track to save those five people, they would be directly responsible for the death of the man on the side track. However, because they did not cause the individuals to be on the main track, it is of no direct consequence because of the individual’s inaction. While this may not make sense to many, the reasoning is sound. It is not technically wrong to allow those five people to die. They were on the tracks as a matter of choice, as was the man on the side track. However, in deliberately diverting the track to kill one instead of five, you are immoral because you had no obligation to save the others (Wall, 2008). In Kantian ethics, there is only a clear cut right and wrong (Wall, 2008); Utilitarian ethics are quite different.
According to Utilitarian ethics, some actions are unethical, but less so than others (Waller,
The Trolley Problems
Many times in an individual’s life they are faced with difficult decisions. These decisions create domino effect and no one decision is isolated to only the current situation. In the case of the trolley problem, the decision to be made will result in death. Either five individuals will die, or only one will have to lose his life. In the first scenario the act of sacrificing one comes at the pull of a lever and in the second you must push him onto the tracks. Would both scenarios have the same answer for you? Would one be more difficult to answer than the other? There is only one right answer, depending on your ethical stand and the following examines the trolley problems from the view point of Kantian and Utilitarian ethics to determine how each theory applies, and what the answer would be according to the ethical standards set forth by each.
Kantian ethical practices mandate that an individual cannot chose a course of action that causes them to become immoral (Wall, 2008). Therefore, when following Kantian ethics, the answer to both of the trolley problems is, no. If the individual were to divert the track to save those five people, they would be directly responsible for the death of the man on the side track. However, because they did not cause the individuals to be on the main track, it is of no direct consequence because of the individual’s inaction. While this may not make sense to many, the reasoning is sound. It is not technically wrong to allow those five people to die. They were on the tracks as a matter of choice, as was the man on the side track. However, in deliberately diverting the track to kill one instead of five, you are immoral because you had no obligation to save the others (Wall, 2008). In Kantian ethics, there is only a clear cut right and wrong (Wall, 2008); Utilitarian ethics are quite different.
According to Utilitarian ethics, some actions are unethical, but less so than others (Waller,