When does the killing of an innocent person become morally acceptable? How much do moral institutions influence people’s perception of right and wrong? This paper will analyze how utilitarian or deontological approaches to morality assess the “trolley-problem” and determine the correct conclusion. This proposal explores how morality is defined and how people evaluate everyday dilemmas. In the first paragraph, we explain the trolley dilemma and how utilitarianism and deontology relate to it. After critically analyzing the approaches of each theory, I’ll discuss which outcome would be the most beneficial. I will argue for the utilitarian viewpoint, because it is the most effective in achieving happiness and progress towards the general good.
Philippa Fee (1920-2010) explained the Trolley Problem as follows: “The driver has a runaway tram he must steer between two narrow tracks; five men on one and one man the other. Anybody on that track is going to die” (Wolff). According to utilitarian ethics, the driver should steer to the track with the one man, to spare their lives. According to utilitarian moral theories, if it is possible to have more than two arrangements, the more good or best activity will be that which produces more happiness overall for the greatest good. The deontological or duty based theories define the correct action as a moral code that limits what we are allowed to do. This is because it would not be fair or equal for anyone to stop the trolley from moving towards the track. Immanuel Kant (1724-1804), who established the deontology philosophy, stated that “act as if you willed the maxim to be a universal law in nature”. This means that it would be wrong to intervene, and letting the five people to die is better than killing them.
While both theories offer strong arguments, I believe that a utilitarian approach is the better option, because it will save the most lives and create the greatest amount of good. If the results are better with utilitarianism, then isn’t it the best perspective? E. F. Carritt’s book explains, when we look at things from a utility perspective, “we are justified to inflict painful consequences only if they prevent more pain or lead to greater happiness”. Therefore, if the number of benefits exceeds the pain, the punishment is purely preventing excessive unwanted pain. Wolff responds to the critic who said: “in general, utilitarianism is a philosophy that allows for gross injustices, if they are done in the interest of the public good”.
Final conclusion: We all have moral intuitions we can abandon in times of crisis to serve the greater good. While Kant’s deontology proposition is morally right, it’s unethical to use Mill’s utilitarianism theory, which justifies the infliction of pain on a minority by maximizing happiness and minimizing the harm.
