The trolley problem
The trolley problem is a sacrificial dilemma where one has to determine between sidetracking a trolley to save many but kill one or a few people. The experiment was done to examine how individuals make and justify their decisions. The action of whether to sidetrack the trolley or let it run its course may be viewed from both the deontological and utilitarian points of view. The deontological point of view suggests that pulling the lever is not moral or right in itself. Therefore, it is wrong, regardless of the consequences. The Utilitarian point of view suggests that taking action and saving the people on the trolley is beneficial to most people. Therefore, it is good. If I were in the situation, I would pull the lever and kill the individual(s) on the track while saving many more people in the trolley.
The decision to save the individuals in the trolley is based on the understanding that this will lead to the highest benefits for most people. This option is only viable in the fictional and experimental world. Most instances do not have the Utilitarian thought being the most important driver of the action. Therefore, individuals are also self-serving. Pulling the lever would or may lead to guilt for the loss of life of the few individuals. However, the guilt is diminished compared to the alternative of inaction leading to deaths of the people or person on the track. In the end, the self-interest of being less guilty will direct the action of pulling the lever. This is based on common-sense morality (Kahane, 554).
Social perception and self-presentation also determine the action taken in moral dilemmas such as the trolley problem (Rom & Conway, 24). Society determines what is ethical or not given that morality is contingent and varying between communities. The decision to pull the lever and kill a few people would depend on how one is socialized. Additionally, the actor is not devoid of later self-judgment and revision of the decision. Guilt would be magnified by the casualties arising from a decision. The self-perception that the decision-maker has based on the existing norms affects his or her choice. Therefore, I would make a Utilitarian decision based on my socialization to think about the greatest good.
Pulling the lever would also be the most pragmatic course of action. The decision to pull the lever would require action. The deontological argument against pulling the lever would be underpinned by the categorical imperative whereby something is wrong despite the circumstances (Conway et al., 241). A statement that assigns moral goodness on the action without consideration of the circumstances surrounding its undertaking is largely idealist and incapable of working in real life. The real-life entails consideration of the costs and benefits. If the costs of action are higher than the benefits, there is no need to ake the action or inaction. For example, avoiding pulling the lever would not negate the consequences.
On the contrary, it would sustain the trajectory of the outcomes whereby a larger number of people would die. Therefore, the inaction has consequences too that ought to be considered. The costs of pulling the lever and sidetracking the trolley would be deaths of the few and the guilt associated. However, these costs would be lower than when the inaction path is followed.