Utilitarianism and Deontology
Introduction
The utilitarianism and deontology theory aims at giving direction to what we should do in various cases. The utilitarianism theory inclines its way forward by judging what aggregates maximum utility while deontology, bases its action on the moral worthiness of the maxims upon which the action is done, and if they can be done by everyone else. In this case, I think I should divert the train right and spare the life of the five people. The essay is, therefore, explains how right my decisions are concerning Jeremy Bentham’s utilitarianism theory, how Kant’s universal test would dispute the decision, and finally what I feel is the right thing to do.
Act Utilitarianism
Jeremy Bentham would probably want me to choose to spare the lives of the five people by diverting the right. According to him, the right action to take on any occasion is the one that maximizes the aggregate utility. His views are based on the hedonistic theory of value that states that, “Pleasure is always directly good, and pleasure is the only direct good. Pain is directly bad, and pain is the only direct bad. Other things are good or bad indirectly only in so far as they bring about pleasure and/ or pain,” (Stitch & Donaldson, 290). He uses the theory to defend homosexuality in his era and to also rebuke slavery with the claim that practicing the latter and refraining from the former brought more pleasure and little pain to the persons involved. About choosing whether to reroute the train right or not to, both cases have pain involved, but then the magnitude of pain is the deciding factor. That is, choosing to channel the train away from the original course will lead to loosing only one life while choosing to remain on course will lead to the loss of five lives which is more and therefore more painful than the former decision. He says, “It is the greatest happiness of the greatest number that is the measure of right and wrong,” (Stitch & Donaldson, 290). Sparing the life of the five people, therefore, brings the greatest happiness, probably to the family members, and should be the right decision to take. Bentham consequently assigns a greater value of utility to the lives of these five people and a lesser one to the one person, which brings to the conclusion that saving the five people would be the right decision.
The critics of this theory would argue that the theory does not take into account the right of one person. It leaves the argument that should life be equated to a mathematical value. All lives are important, and even one person’s life should be considered. Theory focusses more on logic than humanity. What is in it for the one person? Is agreeing to the death of the one person a direct link to the happiness of the other? More so, is it morally ethical? Furthermore, the theory does not take into account the familial obligation. Suppose the one person was a relative, blood ties would require me to save the relative even if it is at the expense of the five people’s lives. The theory however emphasizes that saving the five people is what should be done because it causes the least pain. Some of these questions and weaknesses are discussed in Kant’s moral theory.
Kant Moral Theory
Kant would most likely want me to save the five people because it is the morally right thing to do and it is what every being should do, not because it would yield the greatest utility. According to Kant, the worthiness of our actions are determined by the maxims by which we base these actions, and they can only be considered moral if they can be done by everyone else. In this case, the maxim would be, “I am saving the five people to preserve more life in the world.” He, therefore, puts forward the universalization test that states that,
Given a maxim, consider whether it is possible for everyone to successfully adopt the maxim. If not, then actions performed based on that maxim do not have moral worth. If it is possible for everyone to successfully adopt the maxim, consider whether it is possible rationally to choose that everyone adopts the maxim. If it is not possible, then actions performed based on that maxim do not have moral worth,” (Stitch & Donaldson, 300).
Any person, in this case, would opt for saving the five people to spare more life, and therefore our actions can be considered morally right because they are performed within the right maxims and they can be implemented by the other people in the world. Unlike the act utilitarianism theory which treats these people’s lives as cards that can be gambled on, Kant considers humanitarian sentiments that define humanity. He is more focused on sentiments than logic. He believes that in this case, all of the lives are important but because we are only left with two options to pick from, trying to save as many lives as possible would be the best option to take. Despite the unfortunate loss of one person’s life, he still believes to be human is to act with the realization that others deserve the same opportunities to live as we do.
What I would do
Like the utilitarian and Kant’s moral theory, I would choose to save the five people. In the case scenario, I believe that there would be little time to think about what I should do. The decision to save the five people would be as a result of human instincts, what is morally right. I might also say what is humanly right. Everyone would want to save as many lives as possible, probably even the one person. But if the case only allows for the saving of either, then I would go for sparing the five people. This is however not to mean that the life of the one person is not important. There would still be some efforts involved to save the one person, perhaps stop the train from the operating station. But if it is naturally impossible then the only thing left would be to let go of this one life. Practically I have seen this concept being applied on several occasions. The government needs to put an end to some terrorists planning to attack a place, but then there are some honest individuals around, whose lives would be terminated if the government’s actions are implemented. It always comes down to a point of sacrifice. There has to be sacrifice involved for the greater good. I would, therefore, come to a close by stating that being human gives us little power over certain circumstances, in this one, saving the one life. We consequently have to judge our actions by creates the most impact.
Work Cited
Stich, Stephen P., and Tom Donaldson. Philosophy: Asking Questions–seeking Answers. Oxford University Press, 2019.