1
The Trolley Problem: A Moral Dilemma
Name of student
Institution affiliation
Course
Lecturer
Date
2
The Trolley Problem: A Moral Dilemma
One of the most famous moral dilemmas, the Trolley Problem presents a challenging
decision between taking lives or sparing them. Edward finds himself in a critical situation: an
unleashed train is speeding towards five workers on the track. Edward has the ability to
manipulate a switch, causing the train to follow suit. However, as he does so, he inadvertently
harms a worker who is on the train's designated sidetrack. This situation compels Edward to
confront a challenging ethical dilemma: whether he should risk the life of one person standing in
the sidetrack in order to save the lives of five workmen. In order to examine this ethical
dilemma, I shall examine two critical ethical theories: utilitarianism and Kantianism.
In the story of Edward and the trolley train, he finds himself at a crossroads about
whether to allow one life to die so that five more will not. Edward will face an ethical
conundrum as a situation forces him to decide, even though he did not design the train or bears
responsibility for the impending circumstances. Edward's act of switching tracks in the story is
morally justified, as it is preferable to take one life than end five valuable ones. Thus, it would be
absolutely correct to prefer saving five lives and letting one person die over losing many lives.
According to utilitarianism's philosophy, the answer to this question would be that
Edward should throw away the button. The theory of utilitarianism is an ethical theory that
focuses on the question of accessing the maximum amount of goods for the greater population.
So, from a utilitarian point of view, the right thing is the one that produces the most happiness
and the least amount of suffering (Mathews, 2020, P. 106). According to utilitarianism, in the
context of the trolley problem, Edward should turn off the switch to save five lives at the cost of
one. This result provides the greatest good for the greatest number of people and minimizes total
3
loss. From a utilitarian perspective, it is clear that Edward should discard the switch, as it
maximizes happiness for the family of five.
A supporter of Kantianism would likely strongly advise against making drastic changes.
Kantian ethics developed from Immanuel Kant's duty-sensitive theory, guided by the categorical
imperative, which imposes a rational duty of treating individuals as ends rather than mere objects
or instruments. In Kantian morality, morality entails moral action for its own sake, and this is
based on duty towards and obligation to the law (Mathews, 2020, P. 114). Regarding the trolley
problem, a Kantian would point out that throwing away the switch is actively endangering the
life of the person on the sidetrack in order to save other people’s lives, which goes against the
principle of a person’s inherent dignity.
Moreover, Kantian ethics also focuses on rational and moral principles that enhance the
formulation and equally appropriate application of rules. The act of deliberately premeditated
murder or killing of one person to save the lives of many others cannot amount to a justified
moral premise that can be practiced all over the world, as it devalues the sanctity of life and
reduces humans to tools or objects for use by others (Mathews, 2020, P. 114). Therefore, from a
Kantian perspective, the decision to uphold human dignity is the correct one to make.
In my opinion, the best option aligns with the utilitarian perspective. It implies that it is
appropriate to respect human rights and dignity. However, we cannot ignore the practical
outcome of saving multiple lives. The application of harm minimization and welfare
maximization concepts allows for an intervention in the situation in order to avoid increased loss
of life (Mihailov, 2023). Furthermore, we shouldn't restrict the discussion of 'The Good' in this
context to the narrow scope of human wellbeing alone (Sebo, 2023). Consequently, Edward
4
faces a challenging choice when he chooses to abandon the switch, which places him in a unique
position.
This, of course, ties into the paradigm of the Trolley Problem, which presents one of the
most challenging moral dilemmas, compelling one to face many shades of ethical decision-
making. From the utilitarian perspective, this action of throwing away the switch is correct in the
sense of pulling the lever because it increases the total amount of utility, or, in simple terms, the
total level of happiness. Conversely, Kantianism places significant emphasis on the duty to
uphold individual rights, leading to the conclusion that Edward should refrain from acting.
The utilitarian approach persuasively justifies Edward's decision, despite the majority's
suffering, by ensuring the best possible outcome for the greatest number of individuals. While
this option does unfortunately involve making a tough compromise, one must remember that it is
still in line with the goal of minimizing harm and promoting the betterment of the human
condition. The functionality of law, coupled with moral responsibility, supports the utilitarian
approach to the Trolley Problem and expresses an eagerness to protect real-life individuals and
save lives.
5
References
Matthews, G.W. (2020). Philosophical Ethics. A guidebook for beginners.
https://open.umn.edu/opentextbooks/textbooks/927
Mihailov, E. (2023). Measuring impartial beneficence: a Kantian perspective on the Oxford
Utilitarianism Scale. Review of Philosophy and Psychology, 14(3), 989-1004.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s13164-021-00600-2
Sebo, J. (2023). Kantianism for humans, utilitarianism for nonhumans? Yes and no.
Philosophical Studies, 180(4), 1211-1230.
https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11098-022-01835-0
