The Trolley Problem
The trolley problem has existed for over five decades, and for a long time that it has prevailed, Philosophers have had a significant impact and influence in a proper understanding of the different underlying vital facts. The trolley issue relates to two different scenarios that require one’s action and which tie the response to significant consequences. However, with the changes available, there are different points of view that one may approach the situation and try to justify the best action that would have become taken in solving the problem and getting a better solution that drives critical aspects within the issue.
The trolley problem under consideration involves two sides of the same coin, there being a situation that one is critically in a dilemma. The case is in that one is in a runaway trolley, which is continually building up speed, and within the track, there are five individuals tied up in the path and unable to move. Significantly the trolley is headed straight to them; you have two options, where the one you may do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the track. Secondly, divert the trolley onto the side track and kill one person similarly tied up on the side track and unable to move.
Within the two situations, there is a philosophical dilemma that works in establishing the most appropriate action that one has to take and the different ways that the consequences would follow. The results of each step tie the individual to causing the death of one person and trying to save five onboard (FitzPatrick 183). However, from different views, there are significantly different positions that the solutions may take, and these works to offers the best action that would have been appropriate to undertake within the two situations and which contradict each other. With the two cases as an individual, there is significantly a more significant impact and influence created in making a questionable decision that would be morally right and which would have served better the situation.
Explaining the Two Positions
Philosophy takes a more significant deal to understand, and the scenarios are explained within two positions that would create significantly different ideas. These get based on the philosophical view of consequentialism, defined by facts that, consequences of an action determine morality and that outcomes are all that matter. But which results are allowable? Here the problem presents a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, and these are the positions that try to solve the issue at hand.
On one side, the problem may lie much on the aspects of utilitarianism theory that focus on the outcomes of action in determining the right from wrong, and the most ethical choice is that it would produce the highest good for the most considerable number. Based on the problem, the position of utilitarianism focuses on the actions that an individual may have taken in saving the five people on the track. It forms the highest good for the most significant number and forfeits the death of the one man who gets crushed on the trail by the trolley. The position provides a dilemma in understanding between the two actions of saving five and killing one, which is more essential and what would have been the best alternative. It does not focus on what happened, but what were the results of the action and to who’s good were they and advocates for the more significant number.
Based on the actions that one would take steering the trolley or just doing nothing are activities that constitute a dilemma. However, based on utilitarianism, the moral issue within the situation creates a situation that one has a moral obligation (Jaquet 1151). Based on the fact that through the action they may take, the individual would be an accessory to causing the death of the one man and hence tie them to have participated in the moral wrong. In one way, it makes them have engaged in the moral wrong while no one would have been responsible for the action that would have followed.
The second position based on the deontological ethical theory that looks into action and how well the consequences of the work are attached. The method acts on morality in that; an effort should become based on whether the action itself is right or wrong on a series of rules and not on the consequences of the activities that follow (Lazar 579). The position tries to give the solution to the action by understanding whether the step that one may take is morally right from the first thought and rather than the consequences of the action that would later follow. The philosophical approach aims at creating morality from the first instance and dealing with the situation with a prior judgment of the action one is about to take and whether it’s right or not morally right to pursue.
Strengths and weaknesses of the positions
The two positions take up different actions based on human morality and how well the solutions to the problem may become achieved generally. However, with the two different views, the first position may have significant weaknesses as the actions taken are not well thought. The morality of the situation may only project itself in line with the consequences and how one may view it rather than what had to happen. Furthermore, the actions in the first solution tie an individual to a moral obligation as to their action already done. From a different point of view, the first position may present a stronghold in the fact that the action taken aimed at saving more lives and not the one experience that was on track. It provides a better basis of argument and strengthens one’s efforts.
The second position may present weaknesses in that the moral obligation requires judging the situation and then acting. However, within the problem, there is limited time to debate on what is morally right or wrong and hence leaving the individual to no action. It will result in the death of the five people, which would also link the individual to have had an obligation of saving them before the accident happened. Significantly, the action similarly presents a significant strength in that not making the decision does not tie the individual to a moral obligation of what would later transpire.
By looking through different positions, offering a solution to the problem would require separate agreements on different points of view. However, with the situation at hand, there is a need to consider all positions. The best solution would be trying to save the five and killing the one individual who generally is unaware of the trolley’s problem.
Work Cited
FitzPatrick, William J. “The Doctrine Of Double Effect: Intention And Permissibility.” Philosophy Compass 7.3 (2012): 183. Web.
Jaquet, François. “Evolution And Utilitarianism.” Ethical Theory And Moral Practice, vol 21, no. 5, 2018, pp. 1151. Springer Science And Business Media LLC, doi:10.1007/s10677-018-9956-9.
Lazar, Seth. “Deontological Decision Theory And Agent-Centered Options.” Ethics, vol 127, no. 3, 2017, pp. 579. University Of Chicago Press, doi:10.1086/690069.