Introduction
The issue of moral dilemmas is one of the most fundamental philosophical discussions that provide curious insights into a wide array of ethical questions. In general, moral dilemmas emerge when an individual faces highly complicated situations concerning ethics. One such notable example would be the “trolley case” when a certain person judges whether five people would die, or the individual might switch the lever sacrificing the life of only one person. Concerning this dilemma, various philosophical perspectives assume different courses of action. For instance, the utilitarian approach states that the individual must switch the lever due to the Greatest Happiness Principle (DeNicola 241). However, some people would not be satisfied with the specified details of the assignment and demand more information regarding the situation. This approach is titled particularism, and, in the current essay, I attempt to justify this principle in the context of moral dilemmas and demonstrate how this perspective expands the ethical understanding of the subject.
Background of Particularism
As mentioned briefly before, particularism generally refers to the moral principle that rejects abstraction and demands specific details before drawing the conclusion regarding the situation. Therefore, to coherently explain the principle, it is necessary to refer to explicit situations. Elaborating on the trolley case, a moral dilemma that decides whether five people or one person should survive the event with the uncontrolled vehicle, followers of particularism would require specific details. In its original form, the trolley case concerns the five workers located on the track that would be inevitably killed unless the individual in control switches the lever. In that case, the runaway trolley would be forced to move along another path that would end in the impending demise of only one person. These two conditions are the only details provided in the moral dilemma, and some of the prominent philosophical perspectives can decide the course of action based only on this information. Nevertheless, for the followers of particularism, it deems impossible to judge whether they should switch the lever or not without further elaboration.
In such a situation, it is necessary to know the background of the people in danger, their aspirations, objectives, and how they might possibly contribute to the development of society or benefit the individual. This information is required to expand the moral understanding of the situation and determines the eventual choice of the person. Therefore, in its nature, particularism is not a perspective that guides the moral judgment of the individual in certain directions but rather provides him or her necessary information for the decision. While this ethical principle received the title of particularism relatively not long ago, the fundamentals of the perspective come from ancient times. Aristotle has stated, “it is not easy to give a rule for how far and in what way a man may stray before deserves blame, for the decision depends on the particular circumstances” (DeNicola 242). Therefore, particularism is a prominent theory that has been supported by various scholars throughout the history of philosophy.
Different Perspectives and Discussion
In the philosophical discussion, one should protect his or her perspective by providing arguments for the supporting moral principles and objections to the opposing theories. In its nature, particularism conflicts with a wide array of ethical frameworks that might generally be referred to as generalism or generalist philosophy (DeNicola 242). This perspective operates transcendent moral principles and does not regard the specifics of the situation. In other words, in most cases, a generalist does not care about the particular circumstances and decides the course of action based on internal motives. Naturally, there are various moral principles united under the title of generalism and some of them might indirectly support the idea of particularism. Nevertheless, other ideas directly contradict the concept of particularism, and it is essential to elaborate on them to further expand the comprehension of the analyzed perspective.
Opposed to Utilitarianism
Utilitarianism is one of the prominent philosophical theories that undeviatingly conflict with particularism. This perspective utilizes moral principles as a force for improvement and proposes that an individual must seek the greatest good in all possible situations (DeNicola 106). At the present time, this approach is considered the primary principle of utilitarianism, and if one is able to produce the best consequences for the maximum number, the act is called optimific (DeNicola 106). Therefore, in the trolley case, the person who firmly believes in utilitarian principles must switch the lever to achieve a better outcome, which is the death of one worker instead of five. In this case, the decision of the individual is optimific and is the only sensible course of action; any other judgments would be fundamentally morally wrong. Furthermore, according to the initial form of utilitarianism, all good action ultimately seeks happiness (DeNicola 115). Therefore, the happiness of five people is more significant than the happiness of one person. From these considerations, the utilitarian framework stands in contrast to particularism that cannot assess the best moral outcome without additional information on the background of the workers.
Since the objective of this paper is to justify the concept of particularism in the highly complex context of philosophy with no established rights or wrongs, I believe it is essential to present personal opinion. In my perspective, the utilitarian framework and generalism approach are utopian models that might successfully act as a moral compass but do not endure the realities of the world. While they might be utilized to resolve moral dilemmas such as the trolley case, it is much more complicated to implement them in objective reality. Moreover, the situations in the real world are further complicated by the concept of moral sensitivity, that is the acknowledgment of morally relevant things (DeNicola 241). It implies that, in objective reality, one is not presented with specific and clarified details as it is often the case for moral dilemmas. Therefore, it is not possible to apply moral principles to the situation since most details might be unknown to the individual. I believe it is a more realistic perspective on ethics, and particularism works especially well to expand the moral understanding in such cases.
Similarities with Relativism
As mentioned briefly before, particularism conflicts with a wide array of philosophical theories in its understanding of morality. Nevertheless, one might find particularism comparable to other adjacent philosophical theories, such as relativism. Relativism has different forms but generally implies that it is impossible to utilize certain moral principles in every situation due to the vast diversity in human perception (DeNicola 42). The theory acknowledges the element of uncertainty and is comparable to particularism in that aspect. Therefore, both models recognize that there should not be one particular moral code that might act as the answer to all problems. Nevertheless, there are a few key differences between the two theories. In my understanding, particularism does not necessarily reject the universality of moral principles but rather states that one always needs more details concerning the situation. After additional information is provided, it becomes possible to make an ethical decision. In that aspect, particularism slightly differs from relativism that does not accept a single moral code regardless of circumstances.
Personally, I find the concepts of particularism and relativism reasonable and applicable in most situations that might be encountered in objective reality. Contrary to the ideas of generalists, I perceive these two frameworks as logical and adaptable to the realities of the world. Such flexibility allows an individual to consider all the pros and cons before making a decision and not be restricted by a certain moral code. I believe that the nature of the world is chaotic; therefore, it is essential to act according to the situation and not the universal ethical principles.
Conclusion
Summing up, the current essay discusses the primary principles and background of particularism and compares the framework to opposing theories on the example of the trolley case. Personally, I favor this philosophical model and consider that it is essential to take specific circumstances of the situation into account in most cases. The generalist ideas concerning the imperative aspect of moral principles seem utopian to me while not reflecting the sensibilities of the world. Furthermore, while the primary objective of such frameworks, for instance, the utilitarian Greatest Happiness principle, is admirable, it deems unachievable if we are to consider the vast diversity of human personalities and aspirations. Therefore, the model of particularism, that one should first assess the situation and act accordingly, resonates especially well with me. While I do not state that this principle should become the norm in the philosophical tradition of morality and ethics, I find it reasonable and justifiable.
Work Cited
DeNicola, Daniel. Moral Philosophy: A Contemporary Introduction. Broadview Press, 2018.