Introduction
The Trolley Problem, a well-known thought experiment in applied ethics, challenges individuals to confront profound moral dilemmas involving life and death. First introduced by Philippa Foot in 1967, this scenario places an individual, in this case, Edward, at a critical juncture where a decision must be made about redirecting a runaway train. If Edward pulls a switch, the train diverts to a track where one person stands, killing them but saving five workers on the original track. If he does nothing, the five workers perish. This essay explores Edward’s ethical dilemma through two contrasting philosophical frameworks: Utilitarianism, which prioritises outcomes for the greatest number, and Kantianism, which emphasises moral duty and the inherent dignity of individuals. By examining these perspectives, I aim to evaluate the reasoning behind Edward’s potential actions, ultimately proposing a personal stance on the matter. This analysis underscores the complexity of moral decision-making and the inevitable tension between consequences and principles.
The Trolley Problem: Context and Ethical Dilemma
The Trolley Problem presents a stark ethical challenge that forces Edward to grapple with the value of human life and the consequences of action versus inaction. Edward, standing near the train tracks, is an outsider to the situation, yet he holds the power to alter its tragic outcome. The runaway train, with failed brakes and an incapacitated conductor, barrels towards five workers who are unable to escape. A switch nearby offers Edward the chance to redirect the train onto a different track, where one person stands, unaware of the danger. The choice is harrowing: save five by sacrificing one, or allow five to die by remaining passive. As Sandel (2009) notes, such scenarios strip ethics to its rawest form, compelling individuals to weigh competing moral priorities. Edward did not create this crisis, yet his decision—whether to act or not—bears heavy moral weight. This dilemma exemplifies the broader struggle in applied ethics to reconcile personal responsibility with unavoidable harm, setting the stage for theoretical analysis.
Utilitarianism: Maximising the Greater Good
Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory primarily associated with Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, evaluates actions based on their outcomes, aiming to maximise overall happiness or well-being for the greatest number of people (Mill, 1863). From this perspective, Edward’s decision appears straightforward. By pulling the switch, he saves five lives at the cost of one, thereby producing the greatest net benefit. The principle of utility dictates that the morally right action is the one that minimises harm and maximises good across all affected parties. As Driver (2014) explains, Utilitarianism often requires difficult trade-offs, but its focus remains on aggregate welfare rather than individual rights in isolation. Applied to the Trolley Problem, this approach justifies Edward’s intervention as a responsible choice, albeit an emotionally burdensome one. Indeed, the loss of one life is tragic, but preventing five deaths arguably aligns with a broader societal good. However, this perspective is not without critique, as it risks reducing human lives to mere numbers, a concern that other ethical theories address more directly.
Kantianism: Duty and Respect for Persons
In contrast, Kantian ethics, grounded in the philosophy of Immanuel Kant, prioritises moral duty over consequences, insisting that individuals must be treated as ends in themselves, never merely as means to an end (Kant, 1785). From this viewpoint, Edward faces a profound moral prohibition against pulling the switch. To do so would involve using the person on the alternate track as a tool to save the five workers, violating their inherent dignity and autonomy. Kant’s categorical imperative, which demands that one act only according to maxims that can be universalised, reinforces the idea that intentional harm to an individual is unethical, regardless of the outcome (O’Neill, 1985). As such, a Kantian perspective might urge Edward to refrain from action, even if it results in greater loss of life, because moral integrity hinges on respecting each person’s worth. This stance, while principled, can seem rigid or impractical in crises like the Trolley Problem, where inaction itself leads to harm. Nevertheless, it highlights a critical dimension of ethics—namely, the importance of unwavering moral rules.
Personal Reflection: Navigating the Dilemma
Reflecting on Edward’s predicament, I find myself leaning towards a Utilitarian approach, despite the emotional and moral discomfort it entails. Pulling the switch, while resulting in the death of one person, saves five others, which appears to be the more responsible choice under these dire circumstances. I acknowledge the Kantian argument that treating an individual as a means to an end undermines their dignity, and this perspective carries significant weight. However, I struggle with the notion that inaction—allowing five deaths when intervention could prevent them—is morally neutral. As Singer (2009) argues, choosing not to act is itself a decision with consequences, and failing to mitigate harm when possible seems ethically problematic. For me, aligning with “The Good” means prioritising life and minimising suffering wherever feasible, even if the decision feels personally agonising. This scenario, though hypothetical, reveals the profound difficulty of ethical choices and underscores the importance of weighing outcomes alongside principles. I can only hope never to face such a situation in reality, where theory must translate into action.
Broader Implications in Applied Ethics
The Trolley Problem extends beyond a mere thought experiment; it mirrors real-world ethical challenges in fields like medicine, policy-making, and technology, where decisions often involve trade-offs between individual rights and collective welfare. For instance, in healthcare, triage situations during emergencies may require prioritising some patients over others, echoing Utilitarian logic (Savulescu & Wilkinson, 2020). Conversely, Kantian principles underpin many human rights frameworks, insisting on the inviolability of personal dignity regardless of broader outcomes. Engaging with the Trolley Problem thus equips us to better navigate these complex scenarios by fostering critical thinking about moral priorities. It also reminds us that ethical dilemmas rarely offer clear-cut solutions; instead, they demand a balance of reason, empathy, and reflection. This thought experiment, while unsettling, ultimately serves as a tool for honing our understanding of responsibility in the face of unavoidable harm.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the Trolley Problem illuminates the intricate nature of moral decision-making, where neither choice is free from consequence or ethical cost. Utilitarianism advocates for pulling the switch to save the greater number, focusing on outcomes and collective benefit, while Kantianism opposes such action on the grounds of moral duty and respect for individual dignity. After considering both frameworks, I align with the Utilitarian perspective, prioritising the спасение of five lives over one, though I recognise the profound moral weight of this choice. This analysis reveals that ethical decisions are seldom straightforward; they require careful consideration of competing values and the inevitable trade-offs they entail. The Trolley Problem, as a cornerstone of applied ethics, underscores the messy, personal nature of morality and the importance of reflective judgment. Ultimately, it challenges us to think deeply about what it means to act responsibly, even when the answers are far from easy, preparing us for the nuanced moral landscapes we may encounter in life.
References
- Driver, J. (2014) Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
- Kant, I. (1785) Fundamental Principles of the Metaphysic of Morals. Translated by T. K. Abbott. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform.
- Mill, J. S. (1863) Utilitarianism. London: Parker, Son, and Bourn.
- O’Neill, O. (1985) A Simplified Account of Kant’s Ethics. In J. E. White (Ed.), Contemporary Moral Problems. St. Paul, MN: West Publishing Co.
- Sandel, M. J. (2009) Justice: What’s the Right Thing to Do? New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Savulescu, J. & Wilkinson, D. (2020) Pandemic Ethics: The Case for Risky Research. Journal of Medical Ethics.
- Singer, P. (2009) The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty. New York: Random House.
