I will argue that Utilitarianism will never be seen as the correct moral philosophy and with good reason. Throughout this paper, I will be talking about the Trolley Problem developed by British philosophy Philippa Foot in 1967. This problem, in its simplest form, is deciding whether it is more morally correct to passively kill five people or actively kill one person. For the purposes of my depiction of it, the notion of actively versus passively killing someone will not be relevant for the moment. Instead, it will should always be assumed that this fact isn’t important, it just is a matter of which group dies and which group lives. I make my way through the different views of Utilitarianism, and simultaneously adapt the Trolley Problem accordingly
…show more content…
The Repugnant Conclusion. Derek Parfit, in “Overpopulation and the Quality of Life”, defines the Repugnant Conclusion as follows: “Compared with the existence of very many people— say, ten billion—all of whom have a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger number of people whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though these people would have lives that are barely worth living.” According to this conclusion, the new Trolley Problem would be the idea that no matter how happy the people on one side of the track are, there must be a scenario in which there are enough people on the other track (who are much less happy but whose lives are just worth living) to make it worth it to the Utilitarian to kill the first group of people. Without getting too hypothetical, it is clear that there is something very wrong with this outcome, and I agree with the intuitional outlook. The fact that a large group of people whose lives are barely worth living could outweigh a smaller group of people that are vastly happier seems illogical. Would you rather live a century in ecstasy, or a lifetime eating just enough potatoes to make your life worth living? The answer seems obvious, and this objects to the Utilitarian …show more content…
There are not a lot of instances, in which dying is a better option than the pain one is currently going through. We know the possible pleasures that await us, and these outweigh the current struggles or problems that we may be facing. Looking at how these affect our actions, though, is a way to think about why Utilitarianism is flawed. Just as each human holds their own life important, they too can be thought of as holding their decisions as important. Bernard Williams, in “Utilitarianism and Integrity”, recognizes this concept. He states, “Utilitarianism fails to recognize “that each of us is specially responsible for what he does, rather than for what other people do. This is an idea closely connected with the value of integrity.” Integrity is something that I believe all humans hold, and it needs to be taken into account when making a decision. I also believe that there can be different levels of integrity, and that this plays a major role in a decision that is made. Going back to the original Trolley Problem, now whether you are actively or passively killing someone plays a role. If the man or woman with the dilemma has a high enough level of integrity (all else being equal), then he or she would rather passively let five people die than actively kill one, as it would damage her or his integrity. I think a great way to think about integrity is to
The Repugnant Conclusion. Derek Parfit, in “Overpopulation and the Quality of Life”, defines the Repugnant Conclusion as follows: “Compared with the existence of very many people— say, ten billion—all of whom have a very high quality of life, there must be some much larger number of people whose existence, if other things are equal, would be better, even though these people would have lives that are barely worth living.” According to this conclusion, the new Trolley Problem would be the idea that no matter how happy the people on one side of the track are, there must be a scenario in which there are enough people on the other track (who are much less happy but whose lives are just worth living) to make it worth it to the Utilitarian to kill the first group of people. Without getting too hypothetical, it is clear that there is something very wrong with this outcome, and I agree with the intuitional outlook. The fact that a large group of people whose lives are barely worth living could outweigh a smaller group of people that are vastly happier seems illogical. Would you rather live a century in ecstasy, or a lifetime eating just enough potatoes to make your life worth living? The answer seems obvious, and this objects to the Utilitarian …show more content…
There are not a lot of instances, in which dying is a better option than the pain one is currently going through. We know the possible pleasures that await us, and these outweigh the current struggles or problems that we may be facing. Looking at how these affect our actions, though, is a way to think about why Utilitarianism is flawed. Just as each human holds their own life important, they too can be thought of as holding their decisions as important. Bernard Williams, in “Utilitarianism and Integrity”, recognizes this concept. He states, “Utilitarianism fails to recognize “that each of us is specially responsible for what he does, rather than for what other people do. This is an idea closely connected with the value of integrity.” Integrity is something that I believe all humans hold, and it needs to be taken into account when making a decision. I also believe that there can be different levels of integrity, and that this plays a major role in a decision that is made. Going back to the original Trolley Problem, now whether you are actively or passively killing someone plays a role. If the man or woman with the dilemma has a high enough level of integrity (all else being equal), then he or she would rather passively let five people die than actively kill one, as it would damage her or his integrity. I think a great way to think about integrity is to