Navigation
Using famous thought experiments to test the boundaries of utilitarian and deontological reasoning.
Imagine you are standing by a railway switch when a runaway trolley barrels toward five workers; with one pull of a lever, you can save them, but only by killing an innocent bystander on the other track. Would you pull it, and more importantly, could you justify your choice to a judge?
In the classic Trolley Problem, we face a choice between two major ethical frameworks. Utilitarianism, championed by thinkers like John Stuart Mill, argues that the most moral action is the one that maximizes 'utility' or the greatest good for the greatest number. In a simple calculation where represents lives saved, a Utilitarian sees and pulls the lever. On the other hand, Deontology, associated with Immanuel Kant, suggests that certain actions are inherently right or wrong, regardless of the consequences. For a Deontologist, killing an innocent person is a violation of a moral rule, meaning pulling the lever might be seen as committing a murder, even if it saves five others. These frameworks form the 'tug-of-war' in our moral reasoning.
Quick Check
If a person refuses to pull the lever because they believe 'killing is always wrong regardless of the outcome,' which framework are they using?
Answer
Deontology
Philosopher Judith Jarvis Thomson introduced the Fat Man variant to test our consistency. Imagine you are on a footbridge. You can stop the trolley by pushing a very large man off the bridge into its path. He will die, but the five workers will live. Interestingly, while of people say they would pull the lever in the original version, only about say they would push the man. This reveals a psychological bias: personal force. We feel a greater moral 'ick' when we have to use our own physical strength to harm someone directly, even if the mathematical outcome ( lives gained) remains exactly the same as the switch scenario.
1. Scenario A: You press a button from a mile away that redirects a missile to a less populated area. 2. Scenario B: You have to manually push a person into the path of that missile to stop it. 3. Observation: Most people find Scenario A easier to justify because it lacks 'personal force,' even though the result is identical.
Quick Check
Why do fewer people agree to push the 'Fat Man' than to pull the switch?
Answer
Because of 'personal force' and the psychological aversion to direct physical harm.
The Doctrine of Double Effect is a legal and ethical principle used to justify actions that have both a good and a bad effect. According to DDE, an action is permissible if: 1) The action itself is morally neutral. 2) The 'bad' effect is a foreseen side effect, not the intended means to the goal. In the switch scenario, the bystander's death is a tragic side effect of saving the five. In the Fat Man scenario, the man's body is the tool used to stop the train; his harm is the means to the end. DDE argues that using a person as a mere tool is always wrong, which explains why our intuition shifts between the two cases.
In the Loop Variant, the side track loops back to the main track. If the one person wasn't there to stop the trolley with their body, it would loop around and hit the five anyway. 1. In the original switch, the person's presence is accidental. 2. In the loop, the person's body is necessary to stop the train. 3. This makes the loop variant logically similar to the 'Fat Man' because the person is being used as a 'buffer' or a means to an end.
To push these theories to the limit, consider the Transplant Surgeon problem. A surgeon has five patients who will die without organ transplants. A healthy traveler walks in for a check-up. The surgeon could kill the traveler, harvest their organs, and save five lives. This is mathematically identical to the trolley problem ( vs ). However, almost no one agrees this is moral. This 'challenge' problem forces us to reconcile Utilitarian logic with the Right to Life. It suggests that our moral frameworks must account for 'rights' and 'institutional trust'—if surgeons killed healthy people, no one would ever go to the hospital again, lowering the total utility of society in the long run.
To defend the choice to NOT pull the lever in the Loop Variant: 1. Identify the framework: Use Deontology. 2. Apply the rule: 'Human beings should never be used as a means to an end.' 3. Apply DDE: Argue that because the person's body is required to stop the train, their death is an intended part of the plan, not a side effect. 4. Conclusion: Therefore, the act is a violation of the individual's right to life.
Which principle suggests that an action is okay if the harm caused is a side effect and not the intended method?
In the 'Fat Man' variant, why do most people refuse to push the man, even if they would pull the switch?
A pure Utilitarian would likely support the surgeon killing one healthy person to save five patients.
Review Tomorrow
In 24 hours, try to explain the difference between 'intended means' and 'foreseen side effects' to a friend using the trolley and the loop variant.
Practice Activity
Research the 'Self-Driving Car Dilemma.' How should a car's AI be programmed to choose between hitting a pedestrian or swerving and killing the passenger? Write a 1-paragraph defense using Utilitarianism.