Analysis Of The Train Switch Dilemma

1583 Words4 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: 3 formulations of the Categorical Imperative

In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train onto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surely killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why …show more content…

What are morals? Where do they come from? Morality is about making correct choices. Morals are the “thing” we base our motives on for actions in those choices. They are the guiding principles from which our responsibilities/decisions/actions originate. There are two schools of thought on this matter. One is Consequentialist Utilitarianism developed by Jeremy Bentham, which evaluates the moral rightness of a decision based on its outcome. The other is Kantian Ethics developed by Immanuel Kant, which is a deontological moral duty theory which evaluates the rightness of an action no matter what the consequences. (Harmin par. 2). In the train dilemma, I will be focusing on Kantian ethics, which focus on the inherent worth of each human being. I will show how this theory supports my argument for Alex not to pull the rail switch …show more content…

If an action can pass the Categorical Imperative, then it is a good choice. According to Kant, the idea behind the Categorical Imperative is, “Act only in such a way that you would want your actions to become a universal law, applicable to everyone in a similar situation” (Deontology 2008). From the Categorical Imperative perspective, we must consider what we view as universal moral laws, (general rules of right living). If murder is against the universal moral laws, then it would be wrong to decide to kill another human being in order to save others, because intentionally killing (murder) is always

Show More
Related

  • Why Is Lennie Wrong

    507 Words  | 2 Pages

    Majority of people would say that killing an innocent person is horrible. People say killing someone is wrong no matter what. Though it depends what the reason is for. For instance, if someone is a murderer, than they should be put in jail as soon as possible. If someone innocent is causing too much trouble, than get their families permission

    Read More

  • Railway Electrification: In the Wrong Place at the Wrong Time

    1520 Words  | 4 Pages

    The Baltimore & Ohio railroad (B&O) was the first railroad to electrify part of its tracks, doing so in 1895 (Lecture Notes, 2/19/14). The electric locomotive was faster and cheaper than the steam locomotive, and produced no smoke (Lecture Notes, 2/19/14). This opened up the gates for electric locomotives to replace steam engines on their own tracks. Still, only a few American railroads electrified their lines between 1900 and 1950. Many American railroads failed to electrify their railroads due to the high initial cost and economic conditions, the lack of standardized electrical systems used for the railways, and corporate resistance (Bezilla, 42-47).

    Read More

  • Trolley Case Study

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the former choice, we decide to turn the trolley to save five, but kill one. Warren S. Quinn argues that “if our action is a certain kind of withdrawing of aid, it naturally enough seems to count as negative agency” (Quinn 303). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the lives of five. Actually, we have to kill the life of one, but it seems to be the failure to save one. This decision comes from negative agency. On the other hand, the later choice is decide to allow to kill five, but save one. According to Quinn, “negative agency would include the foreseeably harmful inactions that could not or need not have been avoided” (Quinn 292). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the life of one. The consequence that the lives of five is killed also seems to the failure to save them. This choice also comes from negative agency. In this case, we can’t avoid to sacrifice either the lives of five or the life of one. Moreover, this is the conflict between the agencies which have the same nature. Therefore, we can compare the moral values of the two choices by the amount of the sacrifice. As a result, we are morally permitted to turn the trolley in order to save the lives of five, but kill one in this

    Read More

  • The Moral Analysis Of Peter Singer's The Great Train Dilemma

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train unto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surly killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why Alex should not pull the rail switch lever and doing so would be morally wrong. Making a choice that results in the intentional killing of someone and ignoring his or her value would be

    Read More

  • The Problem Debate: The Trolly Car Problem

    1368 Words  | 3 Pages

    The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch

    Read More

  • Orphan Trains

    891 Words  | 2 Pages

    Orphan trains and Carlisle and the ways people from the past undermined the minorities and children of America. The film "The orphan Trains" tells us the story of children who were taken from the streets of New York City and put on trains to rural America. A traffic in immigrant children were developed and droves of them teamed the streets of New York (A People's History of the United States 1492-present, 260). The streets of NYC were dirty, overcrowded, and dangerous. Just as street gangs had female auxiliaries, they also had farm leagues for children (These are the Good Old Days, 19). During the time of the late 1800's and early 1900's many people were trying to help children. Progressive reformers, often called "child saver," attempted to curb exploitation of children (The American Promise, 834). One of the people who was obsessed with the plight of children was a man named Charles Brace. He created the NY "Children's Aid Society". This was a program that was best known for "Orphan Trains". In 1853, Brace founded this society to arrange trips, raise the money, and obtain legal permission needed for relocation (the Orphan trains, 1). The reaction to the orphan trains were both positive and negative.

    Read More

  • Categorical Imperatives Good Will Analysis

    798 Words  | 2 Pages

    In the previous mentioned dilemma, in order to save lives, murder must be committed. What ever that person decides to do will contradict the person’s desire to do a good deed. Despite his actions being pure his will to do good was not met, which is not a good thing. In the term of the law of universals, you must do act according to maxims that could become universal laws. You cannot commit murder, because you wouldn’t want murder to become a universal law. It would be immoral for everyone to go around murdering others; life would be worthless and invaluable. You also cannot save the live of those in need of saving. If everyone disregarded the need for saving others, such as fireman, police, paramedics, then life would also lose its value, because someone’s life is no longer worthy enough to be saved. Good will cannot be unconditionally good if it violates Kant’s own law of

    Read More

  • Euthanasia Is Religious, Medically, and Legally Wrong in Canada

    1315 Words  | 3 Pages

    There are many alternatives to this act of murder. It is not man's decision to

    Read More

  • Deontological Moral Theory And Utilitarianism

    774 Words  | 2 Pages

    In this assignment we are to determine the moral difference between Deontological moral theory and Utilitarianism with regard to the changing of lives on a chance twist of fate with the brakes blowing out of the Trolley excursion. To turn or not to turn that is the question. Weather it is nobler of the heart and mind to follow the path of one and not the other remains a personal choice.

    Read More

  • Utilitarianism vs Kant's Categorical Imperative: A Comparative Analysis

    1620 Words  | 4 Pages

    If a person’s motive for action passes the categorical imperative, his action is permissible. One of the major variations of the categorical imperative is the “means / ends” formulation which makes an important case about Kant’s view of humanity, that you ought not to treat fellow human beings as a means to an end. In other words, you shouldn’t use people to get what you want. On the contrary, in utilitarianism, you may use whatever means (act on whatever motives) are necessary to achieve an end, the sole purpose of which is to increase happiness. So, it doesn’t matter why a person engaged in a particular action, but only that the end result is an augmentation in

    Read More

  • The Death Penalty in Canada

    1198 Words  | 3 Pages

    cannot find an answer to. Is killing somebody for committing a crime right? I personally believe

    Read More

  • The Trolley Problem, by Judith Jarvis Thomson

    756 Words  | 2 Pages

    However, in this case, the decision of flipping the switch to divert the path of the trolley still satisfies both of Thomson’s condi...

    Read More

  • John Stuart Mill's Case: Deontology Vs. Utilitarianism

    884 Words  | 2 Pages

    Everyone has duties to do things which are morally correct rather than to do things morally wrong or incorrect. Consequences are not the determinant whether an action is right or wrong but instead the action itself is the determinant whether it is right or wrong. Using the case as an example of this belief would be the fact that after shooting the intruder they are dead. No matter if they were intruding, the action itself was to grab the pistol and commit a violent act. Taking away any of the outside circumstances such as protecting your family, you still in fact murdered and killed someone. Kant’s theories recognize duties that are mostly prohibitions for example “do not lie, do not murder.” (Kant) By committing the murder in order to save your family you have now went against the deontologist rules that state do not murder. They believe in no intentional killings. Even if it does benefit the majority as a whole it is still not morally right in their theory. In Kant’s theory a killing is the action and the only exception to killing another being is if it was accidental or if you were defending yourself. Why this case is so tricky is because technically you were not defending yourself you were protecting your family because the intruder had no idea that you were in the house and also the killing is in no way accidental, because you intentionally grabbed the pistol to kill the intruder.

    Read More

  • Aristotle's Ethics Of A Moral Nurse

    1481 Words  | 3 Pages

    Our reasoning delivers us with purpose to choose to follow or not follow something. That being said we are responsible for whatever choice we make. The CI says that we must always treat humans as rational beings. Our capacity to reason and act morally is what gives us dignity. Our dignity allows us to have inherent moral worth. Every person who is capable of reason is a valuable being. A person is valuable regardless what anyone may value or not value them as. Human beings have a moral responsibility to respect all humans who are humans. The Humanity formulation forbids the objectification of humanity. To act morally you have to respect the worth as persons who are actually above price. To treat a person with a dignity is to recognize them as a person capable of making rational choices. If you were to lie, harm, or treat someone like their only value is being something you need or want, then you are treating them simply as an instrument. Intent has nothing do with Kant’s theory. So putting a patient to a silent death with the intent of saving them pain and not a miserable life, would not be seen as moral to Kant. Initially you are harming them by killing them. You are hurting the family because is it may not be their wishes. The nurse or doctor would be basically lying to the family and may be going against their wishes. You are taking away any chances of life they may have had. This would not be considered moral. Not only are you treating them as an instrument that you can throw away, but also harming/lying to their family and the dismissing the patient. So let’s look at the three steps of the CI procedure. Formulate the maxim; so I am to assist the aiding of the patient with in killing, when doing so I will allow the patient to not suffer or be sick anymore, in order to promote the goal of increasing human welfare. Then simplify the maxim into a law of nature: Everyone always asks for PAD(physician aid in death)

    Read More

  • Techniques Used by Charles Dickens to Create Mystery in The Signalman

    1444 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the story the signalman is shown as being powerless to stop the horrible accidents involving the train just like humans are powerless to prevent train crashes from happening.

    Read More

More about Analysis Of The Train Switch Dilemma

Open Document