The trolley problem presents a question of human perception of morality which presents two methods of killing in order to save lives. In the one problem, a trolley can be diverted with the turning of a switch, thus killing one but saving five, or to take direct physical action and push a large man onto the tracks, killing one, but saving five. In the responses which were given on the discussion board, I could not predict with truth what I would in reality do. To both responses, I wrote that it was likely that I would do nothing and allow the action to take place. Kant would likely argue that in this case we have the universal responsibility to not kill, with which I agree, and moreover I would not want the weight of anyone’s death on my mind and would also not be sure that flipping the switch or pushing a large individual would be the best solution. Emmanuel Kant presented many views which are aligned with nature in principle: “the starry sky above and the moral law within" In Kant’s arguments, he urges that we are to act in ways that we treat one another, regardless of whom, “always at the same time as an end and never simply as a means." (Kant, 2011) has a deep and profound respect for nature and how it takes care of itself. According to his principles, Kant would likely argue that no action should be taken in diverting the train from its tracks because of our responsibility to each other to not kill, and that people should not use one another as a means to an end, even if to save lives. Killing is still a violation of universal law: as it violates the universal principles, even in the hopes that an action will solve or lessen pain, it would still be an act of self-defeat, because the negative energy in the act of killing would return upon one’s self.
Using utilitarian ethics to solve the trolley problem – the principles are such that the balance of right and wrong are measured by the outcomes of an action. In the trolley problem the applicant in...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document