In the case of the trolley problem I would rely on ethical egoism to justify my decision to divert the train, thus saving the five and killing the one. Before I elaborate on my justification it would be wise to explain the major premises that ethical egoism (henceforth, just egoism) asserts. First, the only thing with inherent value according to egoism is self interest. Somewhat like hedonism, egoism demands a careful deliberation of value in any given situation where a moral choice is required. There seems to be a rather Kantian & Utilitarian bias contained in this quiz, with very little emphasis on virtue ethics. To divert the train is obviously a very utilitarian answer, seeing as how it maximizes happiness and minimizes suffering among
…show more content…
But as an egoist, I need not worry myself with calculating the sum total of happiness or the categorical imperative. I need only weigh what my own interests are in this given situation. What is in my best interest? That’s the only question that an egoist needs to answer. In this scenario, I am the trolley driver. The people on the tracks are workers. These seemingly insignificant details are important to the egoist. If I were not the driver, I wouldn’t have any moral obligation to do anything at all. This position is given some clarity by Russ Shafer-Landau in his book “The Ethical Life”: moral obligations for the egoist can only be derived from either “consent or reparation”. In this case since I am the driver, I would consider that allowing five people to die sounds a lot worse than allowing one person to die. Beyond that, I would consider to what extent I might be held responsible for the deaths of these people. If there’s any chance that I could be charged with negligence or any sort of crime, then that adds to my justification of choosing to allow the one man to die instead of the five. Negligence that killed five people would be punished a lot worse than negligence that killed one person. In short, I’m trying to avoid any case where
But as an egoist, I need not worry myself with calculating the sum total of happiness or the categorical imperative. I need only weigh what my own interests are in this given situation. What is in my best interest? That’s the only question that an egoist needs to answer. In this scenario, I am the trolley driver. The people on the tracks are workers. These seemingly insignificant details are important to the egoist. If I were not the driver, I wouldn’t have any moral obligation to do anything at all. This position is given some clarity by Russ Shafer-Landau in his book “The Ethical Life”: moral obligations for the egoist can only be derived from either “consent or reparation”. In this case since I am the driver, I would consider that allowing five people to die sounds a lot worse than allowing one person to die. Beyond that, I would consider to what extent I might be held responsible for the deaths of these people. If there’s any chance that I could be charged with negligence or any sort of crime, then that adds to my justification of choosing to allow the one man to die instead of the five. Negligence that killed five people would be punished a lot worse than negligence that killed one person. In short, I’m trying to avoid any case where