“Learning to draw the distinction between individual rights and the happiness of the greatest number may, in fact, become a factor in a real ethical decision.” – The Trolley Problem
A trolley car is barreling down the tracks and heading for five people innocently standing on the rails, apparently unaware of the approaching threat. You find yourself standing next to a switch that could divert the trolley onto a sidetrack where only one person stands idle. Would you intervene to endanger the one, while saving the five?
In Thomas Cathcart’s 2013 book, “The Trolley Problem”, Cathcart resurrects a 1967 poser about a runaway trolley car by looking into the philosophical ethics of those who may or may not act to change its path. Through this example and other trolley car versions, Cathcart debates the differences between using innate emotions, and conscious reasoning in determining the right outcome, and then applying different schools of thought to other hot-button ethical issues like abortion and euthanasia.
At the heart of the trolley problem is a dispute between the philosophical theories of utilitarianism and deontology. How you respond to each hypothetical dilemma, can help determine your underlying moral ethics.
Utilitarianism is the principle that bases the morality of an action on its outcome or effect. Also referred to as consequentialism, the end result of an action determines its rightness or wrongness. Therefore, any act must produce the best conclusion for the most people. Jeremy Bentham, an 18th-century British ethicist, is most known for his advancement of utilitarianism, the maximization of happiness. In the trolley example, saving five is preferable to saving one, regardless of any extenuating circumstances.
Contrastingly, Immanuel Kant was an 18th-century German philosopher who supported deontology, or the philosophy of duty and obligation, where morality is based on obedience to rules and rights. Here we judge the action itself as either right or wrong, rather than considering its outcome. Deontology adheres to the ethical code where rights are natural, universal, equal, and unalienable, therefore, prevailing principles cannot be ignored to achieve a positive outcome for the majority. In the trolley scenario, humans are not a means to an end, therefore, the individual standing alone has a right not to be sacrificed for the good of the five.
In politics, utilitarianism is seen in the philosophy of majoritarianism. When ruled by the majority, what the multitudes want, the minority must follow. Majoritarianism, or mass rule, is found in democracies without constraint, where the mob can confiscate from the few. Using the label of the common good and general welfare, politicians use utilitarianism to extend their powers to promote policies that bring the most happiness to the most people, claiming that good policies are those that are best for the majority, the minority be damned.
Yet, in the United States, the founders created a Constitutional republic with checks and balances to override the will of the majority and protect the interests of the minority. The Constitution came with enumerated powers listed in the document, which politicians shall not override for any reason. And despite the wide latitude politicians have taken with the general welfare clause in modern times, James Madison specifically stated that the general welfare clause was limited to the enumerated powers in the Constitution, clearly understanding it was a slippery slope to tyranny.
Of course, most of us believe that we should give considerable regard to the needs of others. Yet, rather than demanding complete sacrifice (altruism) on one end of the morality spectrum or responding with little concern (selfishness) on the other, most settle in the middle. Reciprocity, as defined by the Golden Rule, is the social behavior where we act for the mutual benefit of one another. And since our feelings of altruism are limited, we tend to treat those closest to us as more valuable than those with which we are less familiar.
Exercises like the trolley car help us recognize the different theories we employ to determine the rightness and wrongness of an action. Whether or not it aids us in making the right decisions for any number of ethical dilemmas, it can assist in understanding the foundation for how a society should function and whether justice will be determined by maximizing the happiness for the greatest number or respecting the rights of the individual.
Comments