Utilitarianism And The Trolley Essay

Killing one to save five others is supported by act utilitarianism as it allows for more happiness. The happiness of five people outweighs, and creates more happiness, than the happiness of only one; as opposed to those same five dying, thus making them unable to promote/create happiness. If maximizing utility is the goal, there is no doubt that condemning one to save five is permissible under utilitarian principles. The loop variant of the case follows exactly as the original case of the trolley problem. Seeing as it is handled in the same manner. The death or pain of one, and ultimately his or her family, is permissible due to the net happiness and utility of five people (and their families.) Another way to think of this scenario is that we do nothing and allow five people to die is enabling one to live. From a utilitarian point of view, this is indefensible, in the sense that with all entities being equal
The inclination that killing is bad is certainly rooted in the world around us, but I believe it is difficult for the reader to identity with the bystander at the switch in the trolley problem. How many times have you had the power to determine who lives and dies? Hopefully few to none, because of this it is easier to feel inclined that killing is bad because we grow up understanding the punishment associated with it (jail). To abiding by utilitarian ideals does make it permissible to kill a bystander, but only if the apparent utility of the situation will increase. In reality it is almost always impossible to fully grasp the full effect of an action until long after the decision has been made. It is for this reason that utilitarianism is the most plausible way to answer these two thought experiments but also why actual application (such as in the example of the Surgeon) is rarely if ever