Student’s Name
Professor’s Name
Subject Title
Date
The Trolley Problem.
Introduction.
Over the years, the issue of Ethics remains to raise heated debates globally. Resulting from different opinions from people basing their reasoning on different aspects, be it logical or emotional aspects. Towards the end of the 20th century, great philosophers such as Judith Thomson and Peter Unger tried to bring out the concept of correct or wrong by critically analyzing an imaginary social dilemma known as the “The Trolley Problem.” The problem brings up an argument of whether an individual controlling a lever in a rail would let a trolley run over five individuals or use the lever to turn the trolley to another rail but still run over one individual (Thomson 2). Hence, creating an ethical argument that is acceptable to some people but also unacceptable to others.
Dilemma.
The trolley problem’s Dilemma comes in since there are two sides that one needs to choose from to save life. As a matter of fact, both options are dealing with human life, which is priceless. Some would opt for saving more lives over one life, from diverse thoughts, while other parties would argue that single life is equally valuable to the rest of the other five lives (Thomson 3). The decision might also be more challenging since those of the later opinion question those of earlier opinion that, what if the one individual in the adjacent rail is your close relative, probably your only son. Would those of earlier opinion still stick to their choice of sacrificing one individual for more life?
Positions to solve the Dilemma.
Siding with the first option, one may tend to switch the rail to sacrifice one individual to save the other five. From a logical perspective, it would be beneficial to have saved more lives compared to one. Besides, supporting the thought using the double doctrine effect, sacrificing one life to save five in the situation is not planned; it is just a necessary evil that will have to happen for the greater good of more lives to be secure. Hence, a wrong that arises as a side effect of doing goodwill is likely to be overwritten by the positive intentions (Kleinig 76). Hence, it will be morally okay to let the trolley run over a single individual.
On the other hand, one would also decide to let the trolley run over the five individuals to rescue the one individual. This argument views it wrong to change the track from its ordinary natural course and direct it to an innocent person who was initially not in danger. The golden rule of morals will also support the judgment that it is ethically unacceptable to do to others what you would dislike done to you. Besides, by switching the rail from its normal course and endangering the innocent individual’s life, it would also be against the Utilitarianism theory of ethics since the choice will neither bring happiness nor pleasure to the individual.
Reconstruction of argument and validity of claim.
When supporting the trolley’s turning to one individual to save the other five, it is essential to make a judgment out of logical thinking instead of basing judgments on emotions. Emotions would make one’s decisions bias to what they are drawn to, not considering the repercussions of their decisions on others. In the trolley scenario, if the single individual is a relative, emotions would trigger the person at the switch to avoid turning the trolley, hence running over the five people to save one. Emotions consideration is one of the concepts used in decision-making in ethical egoism but entails many shortcomings. Therefore, Just like in mathematics, a logical line of thought in most situations will always make sense to the majority if not all (Dyck and Wunderlich 24). Via logical thinking, it is critically clear saving five lives is better than saving one, despite the one person being your relative. Hence, using a logical perspective in Dilemma leads to suitable ethical choices.
Coherently, as much as a single life is equally vital to five lives, at times, desperate moments call for drastic measures. Hence, in such a scenario, one would be coerced to downplay ethics and turn the trolley to one individual to save the other five since lack of action would depict a more severe and unethical picture of lack of value for human life. Moreover, to result in an ethically acceptable option, the principle of least harm must be in place when reasoning (Dyck and Wunderlich 51). In the trolley scenario, turning the trolley to one individual to save five people would be the best solution with the least harm. Hence, making the decision morally okay.
Conclusion.
Despite the unending opinions of what is right or wrong, the current world can use the example of the trolley problem and the arguments behind it to learn how to make morally acceptable choices when facing an ethical dilemma problem. Where logic and the principle of least harm lead to most sober choices, with little unethical shortcomings. Consequently, tackling unavoidable circumstances with reduced uncertainties on moral judgment in society.
Works Cited
Dyck, Corey W., and Falk Wunderlich. Kant and his German Contemporaries : Volume 1, Logic, Mind, Epistemology, Science and Ethics. Cambridge UP, 2017.
Kleinig, John. “The Doctrine of Double Effect.” Ends and Means in Policing, 2019, pp. 75-83.
Thomson, Judith J. “Kamm on the Trolley Problems.” The Trolley Problem Mysteries, 2015, pp. 113-134.