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 …show more content…
Firstly, rules generate exceptionally more utility as they avert more disunity than they create. Having moral rules enhances utility by restricting people’s discretionary decisions which may lead to the suffering (disunity) of society and themselves. However, rules do sometimes allow discretion if having a rule in such circumstances results in a lack of maximisation of utility. Secondly, rule utilitarians do not dismiss concepts like justice, desert and rights; in fact, they accept such concepts but merely construe them from the standpoint of maximising utility. Pivotal is justice, desert and rights as they promote overall utility and well-being. Yet, people who acknowledge these concepts need to bear in mind that in certain circumstances, there is a need to abandon these concepts for individuals and prioritise the overall happiness of society in general. It can be concluded that rule utilitarianism means that an act is moral permissible if such an act conforms to a moral rule that maximises utility. Rule utilitarianism dictates that one should choose saving the life of the innocent as there is a moral rule that urges us to protect the interests of children and such a moral rule leads to utility. Although, this theory is subject to numerous of criticisms, it is still quite appealing to solving the Trolley Car Problem and any other moral-ethical
asks “What are the costs?” and “What are the benefits?”. According to rule consequentialism, rules are selected entirely based on the goodness of their consequences and proceeds to claim that these rules govern what kind of acts are morally wrong. Basically, the rightness or wrongness of an action is contingent on whether it is obligatory or prohibited by an ideal set of rules. An ideal set of...
In order to defend my standing in this argument I will reason that the use of capital punishment has many benefits that trump any possible objections. Special attention will be given to the topics of deterrence, the families of the victims, and the increased population that has been occurring within our prisons. Any possible objections will also be assessed including criticism regarding the monetary value of the use of the death penalty and opposition to this practice due to its characteristics, which some identify as hypocritical and inhumane. My goal in arguing for the moral justifiability of capital punishment is not to use this practice extensively but rather to reduce the use to a minimum and use it only when necessary.
This paper will discuss the concept of utilitarianism and its impact in a prominent engineering ethics case, The Ford Pinto Fires. Utilitarianism determines if an act is morally right or wrong depending on the consequences of that actions. For this theory, consequences are measured based off their impact on pleasure or wellbeing. In the classic definition of utilitarian theory, pleasure is additive and does not have to be distributed among individuals equally to be considered morally right. An act is considered morally right if the net outcome on all individuals is the most positive outcome.
Philosophy has been a field of study for centuries. Some philosophers have developed ways to determine what is ethical and what is not. This has led to several normative ethical theories describing how people are ought to live a moral life. Some of the most prominent of these theories have set the criteria for morality in very unique and peculiar ways. Two of which are the ethical egoistic theory and the utilitarian theory, each seeing morality in its own distinctive way. By comparing and contrasting the view these theories pose on morality and by analyze how each stands in some of the world’s most modern day issues, one can understand why utilitarianism is a
The utilitarian faces many problems because he loses any ability to live a personal life. By this is meant that in making decisions the utilitarian must consider the steps which lead to the highest level of goodness in society. The utilitarian reaches for the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Two main aspects dominate the light of utilitarian beliefs. The consequentialist principle explains that in determining the rightness or wrongness of an act one must examine the results that will follow. The utility principle is that you can only deem something to be good if it in itself will bring upon a specific desired state, such as happiness or fulfillment. There are two types of utilitarians: Act utilitarians and Rule utilitarians. An act utilitarian believes that a person must think things through before making a decision. The only exception to this idea applies with rules of thumb; decisions that need to be made spontaneously. The right act is the one that results in the most utility. Rule utilitarians believe that an act is only deemed appropriate if it fits in line with the outline of valid rules within a system of rules that target the most favorable outcome.
Consequentialism and deontology are two often-debated theories in regards to moral ethics. Consequentialists rely on which right decision will provide the most amount of good. Followers of deontology however, choose what is right based upon decisions regardless of the possible outcome. For instance, consequentialism as a form of utilitarianism might enable the forfeit of one to save a group whereas deontology wouldn’t allow such a move as the individuals rights are being overlooked. These theories are constantly put the test in the moral trolley and footbridge problems. In the trolley problem a runaway trolley will kill five people, but can be diverted to another track where only one individual will die. The footbridge problem is similar, but instead of switching tracks one would have to push a large man in front of the trolley. These cases are directly relevant to moral theory because they put human intuitions to the test. Both cases are morally difficult, how does it appear acceptable to sacrifice the life of one for others like in the trolley case but when pushing an individual to do so makes it unacceptable. Moral philosophers use such cases in an attempt to understand how people use utilitarian methods to make a moral decision that could cause lasting affects.
In July of 1994, Paul J. Hill, a former Presbyterian minister and later a pro-life activist, was prosecuted for killing Dr. John Britton, an abortion performing doctor, and James Barrett, a volunteer, outside a clinic in Pensacola, Florida. Prior to this, Hill commented on the murder of Dr. David Gunn, another abortion performing doctor, stating that it was a “biblically justified homicide (P. 215).” This statement shows how strong Hill’s beliefs were and leads one to assume that he did not regret killing Britton and Barrett. This paper will address the Hill case and determine the ethical parameter in which Paul Hill should have acted. The two philosophical approaches that will be examined and contrasted are the Kantian and Utilitarian perspectives. Kant and Mill’s point of view on the actions of Paul J. Hill will be presented based on their theories. Lastly, I will explain why I believe that Kant’s theory provides a more plausible account of morality.
For centuries, philosophers debated about the definition of morality and its impact on society. Although philosophers agree that morality is the distinction between right and wrong, they do not all agree on the causes of correct or incorrect actions. When examining Ford’s Pinto cars, the concept of utilitarianism as a moral theory, constructed by Jeremy Bentham, is significantly utilized to justify the actions of Ford. Ultimately, analyzing the Pinto case’s details and assessing the circumstances through the lens of utilitarianism, the conclusion is drawn that utilitarianism overlooks elements of morality.
Capital punishment is a difficult subject for a lot of people because many question whether or not it is ethical to kill a convicted criminal. In order to critically analyze whether or not it is ethical, I will look at the issue using a utilitarianism approach because in order to get a good grasp of this topic we need to look at how the decision will impact us in the future. The utilitarianism approach will help us to examine this issue and see what some of the consequences are with this topic of capital punishment. For years, capital punishment has been used against criminals and continues to be used today, but lately this type of punishment has come into question because of the ethical question.
Utilitarianism judges actions on the basis of how much utility or benefit is derived, for the welfare of the majority, through undertaking these actions. It suggests that no act is necessarily right or wrong but the degree of correctness in the act depends on the utility gained by the majority. One of the defects of utilitarianism is that it justifies immoral acts as being deemed necessary if it prohibits future detriment for the majority. An
Pojman, L. (2002). 6: Utilitarianism. Ethics: discovering right and wrong (pp. 104-113). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.
The trolley problem raises the overall question of whether killing one is worse than letting five die, or killing five is worse than killing one. In the first example of the trolley problem, a trolley driver is faced with the situation where his oncoming trolley is on its way to kill five people unless the driver turns his trolley to another track, saving the five people, however, killing one person who was on the alternate track. The trolley problem is then compared to a surgeon who has the dilemma of saving five people who are in dire need of a vital organ, however, the surgeon would have to operate on one of his patients and distribute his organs among the five who are dying, which will result in the death of that one patient. Thomson
The Bystander at the Switch case is a fundamental part of Thomson’s argument in “Trolley Problem.” The basis of her paper is to explain the moral difference between this case, which she deems morally permissible (1398), and the Transplant case, which she deems morally impermissible (1396). In the Bystander at the Switch case, a bystander sees a trolley hurtling towards five workers on the track and has the option of throwing a switch to divert the trolley’s path towards only one worker. Thomson finds the Bystander at the Switch case permissible under two conditions:
ABSTRACT: Both utilitarians and the deontologists are of the opinion that punishment is justifiable, but according to the utilitarian moral thinkers, punishment can be justified solely by its consequences, while the deontologists believe that punishment is justifiable purely on retributive ground. D. D. Raphael is found to reconcile both views. According to him, a punishment is justified when it is both useful and deserved. Maclagan, on the other hand, denies it to be justifiable in the sense that it is not right to punish an offender. I claim that punishment is not justifiable but not in the sense in which it is claimed by Maclagan. The aim of this paper is to prove the absurdity of the enquiry as to whether punishment can be justified. Difference results from differing interpretations of the term 'justification.' In its traditional meaning, justification can hardly be distinguished from evaluation. In this sense, to justify an act is to say that it is good or right. I differ from the traditional use and insist that no act or conduct can be justified. Infliction of punishment is a human conduct and as such it is absurd to ask for its justification. I hold the view that to justify is to give reason, and it is only a statement or an assertion behind which we can put forth reason. Infliction of pain is an act behind which the agent may have purpose or intention but not reason. So, it is not punishment, but rather statements concerning punishment that we can justify.
In its political philosophy utilitarianism provides an alternative to theories of natural law and the social contract by basing the authority of government and the sanctity of individual rights upon their utility, or measure of happiness gained. As an egalitarian doctrine, where everyone’s happiness counts equally, the rational, relatively straightforward nature of utilitarianism offers an attractive model for democratic government. It offers practical methods for deciding the morally right course of action - “...an action is right as it tends to promote happiness, wrong as it tends to diminish it, for the party whose interests are in question” (Bentham, 1780). To discover what we should do in a given situation, we identify the various courses of action that we could take, then determine any foreseeable benefits and harms to all affected by the ramifications of our decision. In fact, some of the early pioneers of utilitarianism, such as Bentham and Mill, campaigned for equality in terms of women's suffrage, decriminalization of homosexuality, and abolition of slavery (Boralevi, 1984). Utilitarianism seems to support democracy as one could interpret governments working to promote the public interest and welfare of citizens as striving for liberty for the greatest amount of people. While utilitarianism at its heart is a theory that calls for progressive social change through peaceful political processes, there are some difficulties in relying on it as the sole method for moral decision-making. In this essay I will assess the effectiveness of utilitarianism as a philosophy of government by examining the arguments against it.