Since our first day of classes, and many times since then, the trolley problem and the countless possible presented solutions for it are moral dilemmas we’ve discussed over and over again throughout the course of this semester. The trolley problem discussed in the topic of this paper is a bit different than others we have had discussions over in class, but still begs the question of whether or not we should flip the infamous switch. Furthermore, the second half of the prompt asks whether or not it would be morally right to give preferential treatment in this situation if a relative of ours was on the second track. In this paper, I will argue that the morally right thing for a bystander to do in the trolley problem dilemma would be to flip
…show more content…
For example, one objection that could be made against this course of action would be applying the categorical imperative. To be more specific, philosopher Immanuel Kant might disagree with this answer because of his “categorical imperative” principle. This moral principle states that one should never treat humanity as mere means (Kant, p. 103). In other words, we should not involve people in any sort of plan in which they are not in principle able to consent (O’Neill, p. 115). If someone were using the categorical imperative, they might say that flipping the switch to direct the trolley towards the two children on the side track would mean we’re using the two children as a mere means. Since the two children cannot, and most likely would not, consent to the trolley being turned towards them, those answering this question based on the categorical imperative might say flipping the switch onto their track would not be morally right. I, however, would disagree with this. Given this situation, neither group of kids is going to consent to being run over by a trolley. That being said, the trolley is going to run over and kill one of the groups of the children regardless of whether or not they consent to it doing so. Since neither group can, or probably would, consent to being hit …show more content…
The second half of the prompt asks, if the bystander were to realize that one of the children on the sidetrack was their seven-year-old cousin, would it be morally right to give them preferential treatment and, therefore, not flip the switch? I believe it would not be morally right to give preferential treatment to the bystander’s cousin on the sidetrack because we should not act in our own self-interest but rather perform the act that will benefit the greater good. Not flipping the switch so the bystander could save their cousin on the sidetrack would certainly make the bystander happier, but, going back to utility again, the happiness produced by saving the five children would outweigh the bystander’s happiness and the saving of the two sidetrack children. According to the principle of utilitarianism, we should not take into account our own interests and happiness, but rather the interests and happiness of the greater good (Mill, p. 121, 122). In addition, like I stated before, act utilitarianism states that the correct action to take is the one that results in the most utility, which would still be flipping the switch in order to save the five children on the main track. Those who object to this argument might once again argue that flipping the switch uses the two children on the sidetrack as a mere
For example, one objection that could be made against this course of action would be applying the categorical imperative. To be more specific, philosopher Immanuel Kant might disagree with this answer because of his “categorical imperative” principle. This moral principle states that one should never treat humanity as mere means (Kant, p. 103). In other words, we should not involve people in any sort of plan in which they are not in principle able to consent (O’Neill, p. 115). If someone were using the categorical imperative, they might say that flipping the switch to direct the trolley towards the two children on the side track would mean we’re using the two children as a mere means. Since the two children cannot, and most likely would not, consent to the trolley being turned towards them, those answering this question based on the categorical imperative might say flipping the switch onto their track would not be morally right. I, however, would disagree with this. Given this situation, neither group of kids is going to consent to being run over by a trolley. That being said, the trolley is going to run over and kill one of the groups of the children regardless of whether or not they consent to it doing so. Since neither group can, or probably would, consent to being hit …show more content…
The second half of the prompt asks, if the bystander were to realize that one of the children on the sidetrack was their seven-year-old cousin, would it be morally right to give them preferential treatment and, therefore, not flip the switch? I believe it would not be morally right to give preferential treatment to the bystander’s cousin on the sidetrack because we should not act in our own self-interest but rather perform the act that will benefit the greater good. Not flipping the switch so the bystander could save their cousin on the sidetrack would certainly make the bystander happier, but, going back to utility again, the happiness produced by saving the five children would outweigh the bystander’s happiness and the saving of the two sidetrack children. According to the principle of utilitarianism, we should not take into account our own interests and happiness, but rather the interests and happiness of the greater good (Mill, p. 121, 122). In addition, like I stated before, act utilitarianism states that the correct action to take is the one that results in the most utility, which would still be flipping the switch in order to save the five children on the main track. Those who object to this argument might once again argue that flipping the switch uses the two children on the sidetrack as a mere