Ethical Theories Introduction And Trolley Problem Analysis ✓ Solved

Ethical theories introduction and trolley problem analysis. S

Ethical theories introduction and trolley problem analysis. Study three prominent ethical theories—Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Deontology—and apply them to the classic Trolley Problem. The assignment focuses on comparing the theories and analyzing the action/omission distinction when faced with the switch-track dilemma.

Instructions: Answer two questions with evidence and reasoning, including citations to scholarly sources. Present a reasoned argument for your positions and reference claims about the theories or the problem, drawing on standard ethical texts and thought experiments.

Context: Consider how variations in the identities of the individuals on each track (e.g., friends and family, convicted criminals, or complete strangers) might affect the ethical assessment and whether any single theory remains superior across different scenarios.

Paper For Above Instructions

Introduction. The Trolley Problem and its core ethical theories—Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Deontology—address the same stark moral choice from different moral vantage points. Egoism holds that the morally right action is the one that maximizes the actor’s own well-being (Rand, 1964; Rachels & Rachels, 2015). Utilitarianism seeks to maximize overall well-being, even if that requires personal sacrifice or the endorsement of painful outcomes for others (Mill, 1863; Bentham, 1789). Deontology emphasizes duties and rules that should guide action regardless of consequences, with Kantian duties often framed as universalizable and non-cons consequentialist (Kant, 1785; Ross, 1930). The trolley case—whether to pull a lever to divert a trolley away from five people onto a track where one person stands—is used to illuminate how each theory weighs outcomes, duties, and the moral significance of action versus inaction (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985). The contemporary literature has expanded these debates, including critiques and refinements by Singer (1993) and contemporary commentary in standard reference works (Britannica, n.d.; SEP entries on Utilitarianism and Deontology). The central questions for this assignment are twofold: (1) Which ethical theory among those discussed is most appealing to you, and are any of them morally superior to the others? (2) What would you do in the Trolley Problem, and which theory would you rely on to justify your decision? How might your answer change if the identities of the individuals on each track vary (friends and family vs complete strangers or criminals)? These questions require a reasoned argument that connects theory to practice and uses evidence from established scholarship.

Analysis: Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Deontology offer distinct decision procedures for the Trolley Problem. Egoism would assess the action by its impact on the actor’s own well-being. If pulling the lever saves the actor’s own significant interests—e.g., family safety, personal moral standing, or avoidance of guilt in proportion to self-interest—an egoist might favor action that minimizes personal risk or negative self-perception (Rand, 1964). However, an enlightened egoist might acknowledge that cooperation or reputational benefits in social contexts can produce longer-term self-interest, complicating a straightforward “save five at all costs” calculus (Rachels & Rachels, 2015). In any case, egoism foregrounds the actor’s interests as the decisive metric and would resist any moral theory that systematically requires sacrificing the self for others, unless such sacrifice enhances the actor’s own long-term well-being (Kant, 1785; Ross, 1930).

Utilitarianism, by contrast, directs the decision by the net balance of well-being produced. The standard calculation would compare the total utilities—well-being gained minus suffering endured—for the five lives saved versus the one life sacrificed, incorporating the possibility that the sacrificed life might yield greater aggregate benefits or reduce overall suffering (Mill, 1863; Bentham, 1789). A central refinement within utilitarian thought is the distinction between quantitative and qualitative well-being, acknowledging that not all well-being is equally valuable; some approaches permit greater weight to highly flourishing or minimally suffering states (Bentham; Mill). In the trolley scenario, utilitarianism may endorse pulling the switch if the net effect increases total well-being, even if it causes the death of an innocent person, provided that the consequences for the many exceed the consequences for the one (Foot, 1967; Singer, 1993).

Deontology focuses on duties and the moral rules that govern action, not merely on outcomes. Kantian deontology emphasizes universalizable maxims and the intrinsic worth of individuals, arguing that one should never treat persons merely as a means to an end—an action that results in actively killing an innocent person may be impermissible even if it saves others (Kant, 1785). W. D. Ross adds the nuance of prima facie duties—fidelity, justice, beneficence, and nonmaleficence—which can pull in different directions in the trolley scenario, sometimes leading to morally ambiguous situations where no single duty clearly dominates (Ross, 1930). Consequently, deontological reasoning may reject pulling the lever if it instrumentalizes the one person on the alternate track or violates a duty not to kill, even if doing so would save more lives (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985).

Applying the theories to the Trolley Problem highlights the action/omission distinction. A rights-respecting deontologist might argue that actively causing one death is morally worse than passively allowing five to perish by inaction, while a strict utilitarian might endorse action if the overall well-being is higher with the switch (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985). Egoism would evaluate the action based on the actor’s self-interest; a person who benefits from sparing kin or avoids guilt by saving others might choose to pull or not pull accordingly, depending on the actor’s valued outcomes (Rand, 1964). Importantly, these frameworks are often sensitive to the identities involved. If the one on the track is a beloved family member, deontological or egoist constraints may yield a different verdict than if the person is a stranger, while utilitarian calculations may shift with changes in the perceived value or consequences attached to each life (Singer, 1993).

Two central questions deserve explicit answers. First, which ethical theory is most appealing? For many readers, utilitarianism offers intuitive appeal: it provides a straightforward metric for evaluating actions by their consequences and emphasizes impartiality toward all affected parties (Mill, 1863). Yet utilitarianism can be criticized for potentially justifying violations of rights or individual dignity if the net good appears large enough (Kant, 1785). Deontology offers a robust defense of moral duties and the intrinsic worth of individuals, preserving rights and non-negotiable principles, but it can yield morally counterintuitive results in cases where duties conflict or when strict rules permit greater harm (Ross, 1930). Egoism directly centers self-interest and avoids demanding self-sacrifice, but it can undermine social cooperation and long-term welfare when personal incentives diverge from communal well-being (Rand, 1964). Given these contrasts, many readers find utilitarian reasoning compelling for public-policy questions, while acknowledging its potential limits in protecting individual rights (Singer, 1993). No single theory is wholly sufficient in all cases, and a nuanced view often recognizes the strengths and limits of each framework in different moral contexts (Britannica, n.d.; SEP entries).

Second, what would you do in the Trolley Problem, and which theory would you rely on? A personal answer often starts from a default ethical orientation: a utilitarian calculation might lead to pulling the lever if it yields a higher net well-being, especially if the five lives are valued more due to factors like family roles or social contributions. If the one person on the alternate track is a non-influential stranger, utilitarian reasoning may be more straightforward in favor of intervention; if that person is a close relative, deontological duties toward family or egoistic considerations about personal relationships may produce a different conclusion (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985). In cases where the person on the side track has a strong moral status or rights-granting consideration, deontological or egoist accounts could yield the opposite verdict. The critical point is not merely the final choice but the justification: a reasoned, evidence-based argument that engages with the core theories and acknowledges potential counterarguments (Kant, 1785; Mill, 1863; Ross, 1930).

Conclusion. The trolley problem remains a powerful test case for ethical theory because it foregrounds core tensions among consequences, duties, and self-interest. Across Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Deontology, there is no universal verdict that resolves all variants of the problem. However, the exercise illuminates how different ethical commitments shape our intuitions about action and responsibility, and it reinforces the value of careful, theory-informed moral reasoning when confronting high-stakes moral choices (Foot, 1967; Thomson, 1985; Singer, 1993).

References: In this essay I rely on foundational works in moral philosophy and on classic trolley-problem discussions to support the analysis below. Citations include Kant (1785), Mill (1863), Bentham (1789), Ross (1930), Foot (1967), Thomson (1985), Rand (1964), Singer (1993), Rachels & Rachels (2015), and widely used reference material (Britannica, n.d.; SEP entries on Utilitarianism and Deontology).

References

  1. Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals. Trans. H. J. Paton. (Edition reference).
  2. Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. (Edition reference).
  3. Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. (Edition reference).
  4. Ross, W. D. (1930). The Right and the Good. Oxford University Press.
  5. Foot, P. (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 6(4), 5-19.
  6. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 14(3), 189-210.
  7. Rand, A. (1964). The Virtue of Selfishness. New American Library.
  8. Singer, P. (1993). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
  9. Rachels, J., & Rachels, S. (2015). The Elements of Moral Philosophy (8th ed.). McGraw-Hill Education.
  10. Britannica. (n.d.). Trolley problem. Retrieved from https://www.britannica.com/topic/Trolley-problem

Related Assignments