The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch that will cause the train to travel onto the second track, in which only one person is tied down. In the second version there is one track with the trolley approaching the five people who are tied down, except in this case there is a footbridge over the track with a person large enough to stop …show more content…
Bentham’s theory contains the idea that sentience is the most morally important attribute, which is the ability to feel pleasure and pain. The next part of his theory is that pleasures and pains can be quantified, meaning the user makes moral decisions by measuring different properties of sentience. John Stuart Mill developed Rule Utilitarianism, a theory based on Act Utilitarianism. Mill changed the theory by taking the focus off of quantity and instead focused on morality being measured by whether it provides the greatest good for the greatest number as a rule in all cases. Mill also focused on the quality and longevity of pleasure in which, “rational people seeking their own happiness will aim to arrange their lives so that, over time, they will have more longer-lasting pleasures than short lived ones, and more intense pleasure than dilute ones” (Bailey and Martin, 89). This means that if a person decides to learn something new, if it is painful at first it should still be continued if it causes greater happiness for a longer period of time. In both versions of the trolley problem Act Utilitarianism would accept the pulling of the lever and the pushing of the person as the morally acceptable choice. It is morally acceptable because killing one person to save five people provides …show more content…
The first being, “Act only on that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it become a universal law” (Bailey and Martin, 76). This means that an individual can only do an act if they would be okay with everyone else doing the same act, thus if an act would not be something one could live with this act can not be done and is not morally acceptable. This makes part of Kant’s theory universal as everyone needs to be able to accept an act being done to them, in accordance with a particular maxim. The second part of the formula is that one can never treat individuals as the means or tools for serving one’s personal needs, making it immoral to use people for egoistic motives. Kant’s theory also focuses on the rightness of an act and not the good an act would provide, hence if your intentions are morally right but the aftermath of such does not prove such, one is still acting morally. Utilizing Kant’s theory, it would be immoral to push the switch or push the person off the bridge. Thus, one would have to allow the train to continue on its original path in both situations, despite allowing five people to die. One of the main reasons is due to the fact that the one person would not consent to allow another to pull the lever or push them off a bridge. Since the action would not be morally acceptable for another, it would not be acceptable for anyone in any situation.
Utilitarianism is a moral theory that states that an action is considered right as long as it promotes the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. This theory was first proposed by Jeremy Bentham and later was refined by J.S Mill. Mill differs from Bentham by introducing a qualitative view on pleasure and makes a distinction between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. John Hospers critiques utilitarianism and shows that rule utilitarianism under more specific and stricter rules would promote utility better. Bernard Williams believes that utilitarianism is too demanding from people and instead believes virtue ethics is a better solution. Williams seems to have only considered act utilitarianism instead of rule utilitarianism, which may have better responses to the problems proposed by Williams. Sterling Hardwood purposes eleven objections to utilitarianism which can be used to help make compromise between act utilitarianism and rule utilitarianism. I will argue that rule utilitarianism can be formed in such a way that it avoids the problems that arise from Williams, and Hardwood.
For more than two thousand years, the human race has struggled to effectively establish the basis of morality. Society has made little progress distinguishing between morally right and wrong. Even the most intellectual minds fail to distinguish the underlying principles of morality. A consensus on morality is far from being reached. The struggle to create a basis has created a vigorous warfare, bursting with disagreement and disputation. Despite the lack of understanding, John Stuart Mill confidently believes that truths can still have meaning even if society struggles to understand its principles. Mill does an outstanding job at depicting morality and for that the entire essay is a masterpiece. His claims throughout the essay could not be any closer to the truth.
Utilitarianism defined, is the contention that a man should judge everything based on the ability to promote the greatest individual happiness. In other words Utilitarianism states that good is what brings the most happiness to the most people. John Stuart Mill based his utilitarian principle on the decisions that we make. He says the decisions should always benefit the most people as much as possible no matter what the consequences might be. Mill says that we should weigh the outcomes and make our decisions based on the outcome that benefits the majority of the people. This leads to him stating that pleasure is the only desirable consequence of our decision or actions. Mill believes that human beings are endowed with the ability for conscious thought, and they are not satisfied with physical pleasures, but they strive to achieve pleasure of the mind as well.
The foundation of Utility is based on John Stuart Mill's notion that one must strive to act in such a way to produce the greatest good of the greatest number. Utility itself relies on the responsibility of the individual to remain impartial in his endeavor to produce the greatest good, looking past such extrinsic influences that may render the individual to seek a biased sense of satisfaction. In order for Utility to function as Mill wanted it to, honest judgment and objectivity must be an essential part of one's drive for the acquisition of the greatest good.
Case: You are at home one evening with your family, when all of a sudden, a man throws open the door. He’s holding a shotgun in his hands, and he points it directly at your family. It seems he hasn’t seen you yet. You quietly and carefully retrieve the pistol your father keeps in his room for home protection. Are you morally allowed to use the pistol to kill the home invader?
In Foot’s scenario Rescue I, Kant’s use of the first version of categorical imperative says it would be ok to let the one individual perish to save the party of five. In this case the maxim or the subjective principle of volition, could be viewed as it would be ok to let the one person perish to save the party of five, because there is no act of killing the one individual, but merely allowing the one individual to perish; therefore, the one individual is not being used as a means to kill, he is merely a consequence of the rational choice to save the lives of the party of five. John Stuart Mill’s utilitarian belief that the moral thing to do is that which creates the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people, as well as, Immanuel Kant’s belief that murder is always morally wrong. In Rescue II, where the one individual is trapped on the path leading to the party of the five that need to be rescued; John Stuart Mill would suggest running over the one individual to save the party of five.
people’s overall happiness and this is what God desires, so in fact this theory includes God
John Stuart Mill argues that the rightness or wrongness of an action, or type of action, is a function of the goodness or badness of its consequences, where good consequences are ones that maximize the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest number of people. In this essay I will evaluate the essential features of Mill’s ethical theory, how that utilitarianism gives wrong answers to moral questions and partiality are damaging to Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism is a consequentialist moral theory, meaning the morality of our actions is judged according to the consequences they bring about. According to utilitarianisms, all our actions should promote happiness. For Mill, happiness is intended pleasure and the absence of pain. In this paper, I will discuss the objection to Utilitarianism that is only fit for a swine, and Mill’s responses to that objection. Those people who reject this moral theory will say utilitarianism does not grant human life enough value compared to that of a pig. Mill gives an effective response and states that humans can and are the only ones that experiences higher pleasures and qualities of life, which make a human's life better than a pig's life.
John Stuart Mill claims that people often misinterpret utility as the test for right and wrong. This definition of utility restricts the term and denounces its meaning to being opposed to pleasure. Mill defines utility as units of happiness caused by an action without the unhappiness caused by an action. He calls this the Greatest Happiness Principle or the Principle of Utility. Mill’s principle states that actions are right when they tend to promote happiness and are wrong when they tend to produce the reverse of happiness. Happiness is defined as intended pleasure and the absence of pain while unhappiness is defined as pain and the lack of pleasure. Therefore, Mill claims, pleasure and happiness are the only things desirable and good. Mill’s definition of utilitarianism claims that act...
Both Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, had thoughts of the Principle of Utility and what it should be like. Bentham believes that the Principle of Utility depends on pain and pleasure and Mill believes that the Principle of Utility depends on higher pleasures and lower pleasures. Pain meaning evil and pleasure meaning good or greater benefits and higher pleasures meaning that action was good which would lead to a higher level of happiness and lower pleasures meaning bad which would lead to a decreasing level of happiness. Therefore, a normative ethical theory that has come through from this and it is Utilitarianism. The definition of Utilitarianism is a course of action that maximizes the total
Bentham’s Utilitarianism sees the highest good as the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Jeremy Bentham believed that by adding up the amounts of pleasure and pain for each possible act we should be able to choose the good thing to do. Happiness equaled pleasure minus pain. Bentham provided a way of measuring pleasure and pain, he called it the hedonic calculus. There are seven criteria to this calculus. First being the intensity being measured – how strong is the pleasure. The second criteria, duration – how long will the pleasure last. The third, certainty – how likely or unlikely is the pleasure. Fourth, Propinquity - How far off in the future is the pleasure or pain. The fifth, fecundity – what is the likely hood that a succession of pleasure will follow. The sixth criteria, purity – What is the probability that the pain will lead to other pain. Lastly, is the extent – how many people will be affected. This calculus gave Bentham a method of testing whether an action is morally right in that if it was good it would result in the most pleasurable outcome, having weighed up all the elements. These factors weigh up the potential amount of pleasure or pain which might arise from moral actions to decide which would be the best option to take. Ideally this formula should determine which act has the best tendency and is therefore
For the purposes of brevity I will refer mainly to Bentham's and Mill's definitions of utilitarianism. In ...
The ethical theory of utilitarianism is associated with the philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Utilitarianism essentially is the theory that good is what causes a person pleasure and evil is what causes a person pain. Bentham’s utilitarianism is sometimes titled Act Utilitarianism because it focuses on individual actions A “right” action, according to Betham, is one that produces the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. Where a “wrong” action is one that would cause more pain than pleasure. Before a person commits an action, they should look at the consequences that it can have on the individual and others. Hedonic Calculus is a method in determining how much pleasure or pain an action will elicit. Hedonic Calculus consists of seven criteria including intensity, duration, certainty, propinquity, fecundity, purity and extent. Each criteria can be given a score between -10 (worst pain) to +10 (highest pleasure). The action becomes ethical and moral if there is an overall net happiness for everyone that is affected. An acti...
In this week video discussion, the main subject is it ok for the trolley to kill five or one individual that are tied to the trolley track. The back ground of the scenario, remains a person is on a footbridge looking down on the unfolding disaster. However, a fat man, a stranger, is standing next to you: if you push him off the bridge, he will topple onto the line and, although he will die, his chunky body will stop the train, saving five lives. The question is, is it permissible to kill one or the five individuals.