DISCUSSION PROMPT – UTILITARIANISM AND THE TROLLEY PROBLEM
What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person? If the overall consequences were the same, would it matter if you were intentionally harming that person or not? This problem is raised by the philosopher Philippa Foot (2002) in her famous “trolley problem.”
Imagine that you are a standing next to a railroad track, and a runaway train is careening down the track. In the path of the train are five workers (let’s suppose they cannot escape the path of the train; perhaps they are in the middle of a long, narrow bridge high above a ravine). You know that if the train continues on its path, it will certainly kill those five workers.
However, you see that there is a sidetrack, and on the sidetrack is a single worker. Let’s also suppose that you know that if the train goes onto the sidetrack, that single worker will be killed.
As it happens, you are standing next to a lever that can send the train onto the sidetrack. Therefore, you are faced with a decision: to pull the lever and send the train to the sidetrack, killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do nothing and allow the train to continue on its course, killing the five workers. Should you flip the switch to sacrifice one life in order to save the lives of five others?
Now consider this slight variation:
Instead of standing next to a lever that can switch the train to another track, you are standing on a bridge overlooking the track, and next to you is a very large man (think someone the size of an NFL lineman – someone who is just big, not necessarily obese or otherwise unhealthy). He’s leaning precariously over the railing such that barely a push would send him over the railing and onto the tracks. Let’s suppose that he’s large enough to stop the train, thus sparing the five workers, but his own life will be lost. Let’s also suppose that you aren’t large enough to stop the train, so it would do no good to throw yourself over. Should you throw the large man over the bridge?
Engage with the text:
Explain what a utilitarian would say is the right action in each of the cases. Give the reasoning by referring to Chapter 3 of the textbook, especially John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading. Be as precise as you can and use a quote to support your claims.
Reflect on yourself:
What do you think is the right action in each of these cases?
Do you agree with the utilitarian choice? Why or why not?
Do you find yourself agreeing with the utilitarian choice in one but not both of the scenarios?
If you agree with the utilitarian choice, explain why you find its solution to this problem compelling. If you disagree, try to identify the nature of your disagreement by discussing a flaw or limitation in the core principles of the moral reasoning of this ethical theory.
