In Terms Of Utilitarian Ethics Discuss The Moral Issues At S

In Terms Utilitarian Ethics Discuss The Moral Issues At Stake In The

In terms utilitarian ethics, discuss the moral issues at stake in the famous so-called Trolley Problem as related in the eText and also Michael Sandel’s Harvard lecture ( LINK ), where “you are beside a train track with a train headed down the track. However, on the track ahead are five people who will all be killed if the train continues. But you also have access to a switch, and if you pull it the train will be diverted onto another track where there is only one person” (eText p.36, LINK). Do you think that this type of moral choice between the lesser of evils as in this Trolley Problem is realistic to what we might face in our everyday lives or places of employment? Do you think there is such a thing as a moral duty to choose between the lesser of two evils? Why or why not? Can you give an example to support your point?

Paper For Above instruction

The Trolley Problem is a classic thought experiment in ethics, especially within the framework of utilitarianism, which emphasizes maximizing overall happiness and minimizing suffering. This moral dilemma vividly illustrates the conflicts and complexities in making ethical decisions when outcomes impact multiple parties. Through utilitarian ethics, the moral issues at stake hinge on calculating the consequences of each action and determining which choice results in the greatest good for the greatest number.

Utilitarianism, as articulated by philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, posits that the morally right action is the one that produces the highest net happiness. In the Trolley Problem, pulling the switch to divert the trolley and save five lives at the expense of one aligns with this principle, as it results in fewer overall deaths and suffering. However, the moral issues become complicated when considering the act of actively intervening to cause a death, even if it prevents a larger tragedy. This raises questions about whether the means (actively causing harm) are morally acceptable, even if the ends (saving more lives) are desirable.

Michael Sandel’s discussion of the Trolley Problem in his Harvard lecture emphasizes the tension between utilitarian calculations and other moral intuitions, such as deontological principles that regard certain actions as inherently wrong regardless of outcomes. Sandel highlights that many individuals grapple with whether it is ethically permissible to sacrifice one person to save many, illustrating the tension between consequentialist and deontological ethics. From a utilitarian perspective, the morality of pulling the switch hinges solely on the outcome: fewer overall deaths are preferable. Yet, many find that actively causing harm conflicts with moral intuitions about individual rights and duties.

The relevance of the Trolley Problem to real-life situations, including those in the workplace or daily life, is a subject of debate. Critics argue that such dilemmas are highly simplified and rare in practice; most everyday moral decisions do not involve such stark trade-offs. However, some argue that similar principles underlie difficult decisions, such as allocating resources in healthcare or making policy choices that impact many individuals. For instance, a public health official might have to decide whether to prioritize limited resources to save more lives or to focus on a smaller, more at-risk group. These scenarios involve weighing the greater good against individual rights, echoing utilitarian considerations.

The question of whether there is a moral duty to choose the lesser of two evils is complex and context-dependent. From a utilitarian viewpoint, there can be a moral obligation to act in a way that minimizes suffering, which might mean choosing the lesser evil if no better options are available. However, many moral theories, including Kantian deontology, suggest that individuals have duties not to cause harm regardless of the consequences. This debate involves balancing consequentialist reasoning against moral principles that protect individual rights.

An example illustrating this debate is the decision to implement triage policies in emergency medical settings during disasters. Medical personnel often must decide who receives limited treatment, sometimes choosing to prioritize patients more likely to survive or who will benefit most—a utilitarian approach. Yet, this can conflict with the moral intuition that each individual has an equal right to care, and intentionally choosing to withhold treatment from some is troubling. The moral duty here becomes whether to act in a way that maximizes overall survival or to uphold the equal worth of all patients, even if it results in higher overall mortality.

In conclusion, the Trolley Problem underscores the ethical tension between utilitarian calculations and other moral principles. While utilitarianism advocates for actions that produce the greatest good, real-world applicability is nuanced. The moral duty to choose between lesser evils depends on the guiding moral framework and context. Nonetheless, understanding these dilemmas is vital in developing ethical reasoning applicable to complex decisions in everyday life and professional settings.

References

• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation. Clarendon Press.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism. Parker, Son, and Bourn.
• Sandel, M. (2020). Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? Harvard University Press.
• Foot, P. (1967). The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. Oxford Review, 5, 5-15.
• Singer, P. (2011). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
• Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against. Cambridge University Press.
• Kant, I. (1785). Groundwork of the Metaphysics of Morals.
• Johnson, J. & McGuinness, S. (2000). The Trolley Problem. Philosophy & Public Affairs, 29(4), 278-299.
• Kahneman, D., & Tversky, A. (1979). Prospect Theory: An Analysis of Decision under Risk. Econometrica, 47(2), 263-292.
• Resnik, D. B. (2018). The Ethics of Human Research: Exploring the Social, Historical, and Ethical Issues. Routledge.