Introduction
Edward, a train track worker, is facing a dilemma when he finds himself at a crossroads between helping a man who is about to be hit by a train that has lost control and saving five other men across the road by switching off the engine. According to utilitarianism, the activity that creates the maximum benefit or utility should be pursued (Roets et al., 2020). On the other hand, the Kantian view indicates that Edward should only behave in a manner that he would wish universally applied, meaning that saving one life would be a moral action (Wolemonwu, 2020). Edward must ultimately struggle with this conundrum and determine the correct resolution. Therefore, the utilitarian approach is the best theory to justify Edward’s decision to stop the train and save five lives compared to rescuing one person, considering that this verdict produces general good.
How the Decision Reflects Good
It is only possible to determine if Edward’s action is morally permissible by considering its broader repercussions. If he presses the button, he will intervene in the scenario and take a life, which could be considered immoral. On the other hand, he will save five lives in the process, so the consequences of his decision must be carefully examined (Wolemonwu, 2020). Various philosophical theories, including the utilitarian theory, are integral in determining the viability of his actions by reflecting on the good they produce.
The ethical philosophy known as utilitarianism promotes the maximum utility, which can be defined as doing the most benefit for the majority of the population. Therefore, the utilitarian people will agree if Edward saves the lives of five people by stopping the train (Mensah, 2020). The reason is that the principle of utility focuses on how the moral value of an action is based on how useful it is in bringing about happiness or pleasure (Roets et al., 2020). This factor implies that the contribution of an action to the general happiness or joy of everyone is the determining factor in evaluating the moral worth of the activity (Roets et al., 2020). Therefore, using the utilitarian concept, it is morally permissible for Edward to throw the switch, considering that it would save five people instead of one person.
Counterargument Using the Kantianism Theory
Other philosophers would consider Edwards’s decision to throw the switch as unethical. The reason is that the motive is questionable and can be misinterpreted in many ways depending on the circumstance (Mensah, 2020). For instance, if Edward decides to throw the switch, killing one person, it could be to blame the driver since he is out of control. This rationale can be supported by the Kantianism theory, which is founded on the notion that moral principles can be determined only through the value of reason (Wolemonwu, 2020). This factor indicates that individuals following the Kantianism theory will agree with Edwards’s decision if they determine that the inspiration behind his actions was blameless. However, if there are hidden motives, the action can is considered irrational even though it helped save lives.
The philosophy indicates that the only perfect object is a good intention or an action performed out of a sense of moral obligation. Kant felt that moral principles should be universal and applicable to everyone, regardless of their circumstances (Wolemonwu, 2020). He maintained that people should act following the categorical imperative, a moral concept stating that one must behave like all rational beings could when experiencing the same situation (Wolemonwu, 2020). Therefore, depending on the interpretation of the motive, the Kantianism theory can help determine the ethics of a specific action.
When confronted with an ethical dilemma, it is essential to examine the ultimate purpose of morality, which is to accomplish the best for the most people (Wolemonwu, 2020). As such, the best course of action is to throw the switch and save the five workers. Even though this action would result in the death of one individual on the sidetrack, it is imperative to remember that five lives will be saved. The greater good in this situation is to save five lives, even if it means sacrificing one (Wolemonwu, 2020). The reason is that the greatest good is when everyone is satisfied with the results or the consequences implied.
It is integral to consider that Edward is not responsible for the out-of-control train and is merely intervening in a scenario. Although he may be evaluating human worth, he is also judging based on the fact that he is attempting to save as many lives as possible. Therefore, throwing the switch is the best option in this moral dilemma (Wolemonwu, 2020). This decision predates Edward’s obligation to save as many lives as possible. Edward must pick a decision with the least fatality, although it can be disapproved by other moral ethics (Roets et al., 2020). Therefore, tossing the switch is the best alternative in that scenario, which rational individuals will approve.
I believe that the best option is throwing the switch since it will save more lives and is steered by the motive to avoid mortality and reduce the negative effects. Therefore, the utilitarian and Kantianism theories can be used to justify certain behaviors when they occur (Roets et al., 2020). Edward’s scenario with the train is one of the dilemmas whereby the action taken can be evaluated using philosophical approaches to determine morality.
Conclusion
The utilitarian theory focuses on the output, which indicates that if a decision is valuable to a large population, it is considered ethical. On the other hand, the Kantianism theory focuses on the motive behind a specific action. This factor indicates that if something is done through ill motives, it is unethical to even when beneficial to the general population. This theory can support Edward’s decision to throw the switch if the motivation behind this decision can be justified for the betterment of the people involved. Therefore, philosophical principles are integral in helping solve complex issues within society that would otherwise breach the morality scale.
References
Mensah, R. O. (2020). A comparative philosophical analysis of the Kantian principle of moral theory and the Utilitarian theory: Applications and critiques. A Comparative Philosophical Analysis of the Kantian Principle of Moral Theory and the Utilitarian Theory: Applications and Critiques. Web.
Roets, A., Bostyn, D. H., De Keersmaecker, J., Haesevoets, T., Van Assche, J., & Van Hiel, A. (2020). Utilitarianism in minimal-group decision-making is less common than equality-based morality, mostly harm-oriented and rarely impartial. Scientific Reports, 10(1), 13373. Web.
Wolemonwu, V. C. (2020). Richard Dean: The Value of Humanity in Kant’s Moral Theory: Clarendon Press, Oxford 28.12. Medicine, Health Care, and Philosophy, 23, 221-226. Web.