Introduction
Deontology and utilitarianism are basic approaches to the ethics of human relations. While consequentialism, the most primitive ethical approach, considers good only in terms of the immediate consequences of actions, deontology and utilitarianism introduce the notion of actor and patient. The Trolley Problem, invented to evaluate human behavior in a situation of choice, has several typical solution options characteristic of each ethical position. This paper aims to discuss The Trolley Problem from the perspectives of Kant’s Deontology, and Mill’s Utilitarianism positions.
Kant’s Deontological Perspective
Deontological theories are generally divided into two types – actor-oriented and patient-oriented theories. The actor-oriented theory perceives the world from the position of a person, who has responsibilities and permissions to act within a certain situation of human relations. The patient-oriented theory focuses on a person who is the object of another person’s influence and defines patient’s rights. It prohibits demanding anything from one patient to satisfy the needs of another, and claims that the greater good cannot serve as a justification for such demands. Kant supported deontological theory and invented the principle of the categorical imperative, which suggests considering every action from the perspective of a universal law desirable for all rational subjects.
Based on this, several assumptions can be made about what solutions Kant would have proposed for The Trolley Problem. First, in the case where an actor has to choose between the lives of five men versus one, Kant would declare that such a choice is beyond the actor’s responsibility, and is reducible to the contingency of his actions (“The Trolley Problem”). In the case where it would be necessary to sacrifice a familiar person, supporters of deontology would defend the principle of goodwill of the actor (“Good Place Trolley Problem”). No less interesting, in terms of Kant’s categorical imperative, it would be difficult to universalize the actor’s decision to save five people at the cost of one person’s life.
Mill’s Utilitarian Perspective
Utilitarianism is more individualized than consequentialism but still focuses on the consequences of actions. Mill, the most prominent supporter of utilitarianism, defines the desire for happiness as the only intrinsic good or utility, as this motivation lies in the basis of all human actions. Importantly, Mill noticed that not all pleasures are the same and determined the existence of lower sensual pleasures and higher pleasures that require some complexity. Utilitarian supporters suggest that not only can individual happiness be measured, but the happiness of many people can be added up to form a greater utility.
To maximize the utility philosophers propose applying the principles of Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. The first principle claims that an actor should follow the end of the maximum utility, and make decisions depending on a case-by-case rule. On the opposite, Rule Utilitarianism suggests making decisions based on the rules that will presumably lead to a maximum utility. Given the above, Mill will likely suggest that in cases where there are no intended sacrifices the Act Utilitarianism could be applied with the decision to sacrifice one person for the sake of saving five people (“The Good Place”). At the same time, the Rules Utilitarianism could be considered in the case of the surgeon’s dilemma with the decision to reject the idea of killing the donor to save five other patients (“Trolley Problem”). The reasoning would seek the foundation in the concepts of maximized utility, such as decreased trust in the healthcare institution and public condemnation.
Comparing the Approaches
Strengths of Kant’s approach include attention to the rights of the actor and the patient. The deontological approach is based on the principle of the goodwill of the actor and the inviolability of the patient’s rights. That is why the deontological approach has gained wide recognition, as it maximally reflects the ethical basis by which groups of people and individuals are guided in interpersonal relationships, and when following social norms related to professional and other duties (“Mind Field S2”). The weakness of Kant’s approach is the decreased responsibility of actor, whose role could be more specific in terms of ethical, official, or other requirements. For example, to prevent the element of contingency based on the goodwill of the actor, society sometimes introduces specific moral instructions.
The strengths of Mill’s approach lie in distinguishing between cases when an actor should be guided by his discretion and when by rules. The reference to statutes and rules can be useful when the actor is not ready to take responsibility for an intuitively correct decision (“Mind Field S2”). At the same time, the obligation to act within the specificities of each situation is an important element of stimulating action of those actors who are more inclined to take responsibility. The main flaw of utilitarianism is the idea that happiness and utility can be measured.
Given the above, Mill’s approach has advantages over Kant’s approach, as it creates guidelines for the actor’s behavior, filling the free space of contingency that remains due to the actor’s right to goodwill. At the same time, deontology is a more careful approach when it comes to the goals of actor’s behavior. Deontology determines that goals are dictated by permissions and duties, which are more socially understandable than the concept of individual happiness or pleasure.
Conclusion
Thus, The Trolley Problem was discussed from the perspectives of Kant’s Deontology, and Mill’s Utilitarianism positions. The two approaches differ in how they view the problem, the role of the actors and patients, and in understanding overall motivation behind the decision. Interestingly, the utilitarian approach is more convenient for defining the actor’s actions, while the deontological approach better defines the concept of responsibility for actions. Both philosophical approaches can be applied for a complex and effective solution to an ethical dilemma.
Works Cited
“Good Place Trolley Problem.”YouTube, uploaded by Daniel Clements, 2018.
“Mind Field S2 – The Greater Good (Episode 1).” YouTube, uploaded by Vsauce, 2017.
“The Good Place – The Trolley Problem.”YouTube, uploaded by Letsbepandas, 2017.
“The Trolley Problem.” YouTube, uploaded by BBC Radio 4, 2014.
“Trolley Problem.”Wikipedia, 2022.