The trolley dilemma
The trolley dilemma is a noble experiment developed by Philippa Foot in 1967. Judith Jarvis Thomson later adapted the dilemma in 1985. The dilemma prompts the moral agent to think about the consequences of an action or consider whether the moral value comes from the outcome. Since the conceptualization, the trolley dilemma has served as an important which would be critical in probing the moral intuitions. In a dilemma, there is a runaway trolley moving down the railway tracks. Ahead on the trail, there are five people tied and unable to move. A moral agent is standing some distance from the trolley and nearby a lever. If the agent pulls the lever, the trolley would then switch to the sidetrack. The agent notices that on the sidetrack, there is another person tied and unable to move. The agent has two options; either to do nothing and allow the trolley to ram the five people or pull the lever, save the five and kill one person.
In this inquiry, it is crucial to consider the harms that we might inflict on others due to both our action or inaction. The trolley dilemma is a classic example of the saying ‘damned if you, and damned if you don’t.’ The first concern, in this case, is the affirmative duty we reserve when rescuing others. The second concern comes in the impermissibility of harming one person or a group of persons to save others. The trolley problem thus plays an integral role in highlighting the fundamental tensions between utilitarianism and consequentialism. The utilitarian would argue that the appropriate action is the one that attains the highest good. The deontologist would say that killing is impermissible even in situations where they have good outcomes or consequences. Using the concept of absolutism, many people would believe that killing is never permissible. The inaction by the moral agent would lead to the death of the five while saving one individual.
In this case, I would pull the lever to save five. In this case, pulling the lever and the death of one person is unfortunate and the unintended side-effect. Furthermore, it would be morally wrong for an agent to harm another person, which is not an intentional case . The death of one person to save the five is secondary to saving the five. The outcome thus conceptualizes the doctrine or rather the principle of double effect.
Nevertheless, commonsense morality provides the significance of preventing harm while at the same time promoting the welfare of others. Moral in commonsense morality is thus given to the numbers where saving ore lives is morally appropriate than saving less. Duty of beneficence, which is a feature in Kantian ethics, applies in this case. Simultaneously, the utility of the maximum amount of pleasure requires us to act in a manner that would promote the highest good. The trolley problem is thus a contest between utilitarian thinking and deontological ethics. Although the central theme in this dilemma comes in the context of rule-following or rule-conforming psychological processes, the reason application of moral principles would involve saving the many.