What does it mean to have morals, or be moral? To me it is knowing the difference between right and wrong behavior and actions. Ethics is another word I thought was simple, very similar to the meaning of moral but in a more professional setting. These two words go hand in hand with each other, and it’s something most of us wish to have, at least I do. I want to have good morals and be ethically correct. What I did not know is the heavy philosophical meaning behind it, and when confronted with a certain situation how your morals can affect the decision you make. There might come a time when you will be faced with a certain ethical dilemma; how do you decide what to do? You can choose between different ethical systems or theories to believe in to help guide you choose what is morally and ethically correct for you, for society, for god or whatever you believe matters most. A Perfect example of an ethical dilemma is “The Trolley Problem”. In this ethical dilemma you are a conductor of a trolley and the breaks have failed. You have a choice of flipping the switch which kills 1 person and saves 5 or you do not flip the switch and results in killing 5, either way, either scenario, people are going to die (Rowe). What is the moral or ethical thing to do? There are different ethical system that could give you some guidance and allow you to express your morality.
A main one is Utilitarianism, “an approach to morality that treats pleasure or desire-satisfaction as the sole element in human good and that regards the morality of actions entirely dependent on consequences or results for human well-being“(Honderich 890). Utilitarianism is not egotistic, everyone is morally treated equal, and they act to pursue the most pleasure or happiness for the majority. So instead of focusing on the intent of doing something you focus on the consequence, they want positive consequences. In the example of the trolley problem if you follow the ethical system of utilitarianism, you would flip the switch and kill the 1 person in order for the 5 to live. The happiness of 5 living people outweighs the happiness of 1 living person. My critique for the utilitarianism system is how do you know that you actually achieved a positive consequence, yes in the moment it seems right to kill 1 and save 5, but how do you know that for the future that is the best case. That 1 person you kill could be the next greatest thing in our generation to solve global warming, and the 5 people you let live could become major criminals to hurt our society. For example, in a different scenario you have to decide to either shoot 1 person so 14 people can live, or you shoot none and someone else kills them all. Either way your hands are going to be dirty, people are going to die on your behalf, so you choose to kill the one so that 14 live. What if you really enjoyed shooting that 1 person, you enjoyed how it felt to shoot a pistol and you now have the urge to shoot again. So now you make it your personal hobby and you go into a park and kill over 50 people. You’ve killed a greater amount than that 15. If you had chosen to not kill anyone, 15 people would have died, you wouldn’t have touch a pistol and never known that you would have like it, but you choose to kill 1 and now over 50 are dead. My point being there are a lot of “what ifs” to be involved. You can never really know how a situation is going to turn out. In “Ethics for A-Level” a different case is presented:
“You are considering whether or not to approve a new housing development on a piece of unoccupied land outside the current boundary of your town. You are clear that, if approved, the development will create a great deal of pleasure for both new residents and construction workers without any pain being experienced by others. You are aware, however, that the development will require the culling of several badgers and the removal of a habitat currently supporting many birds, stray cats and rodents of various types” (Dimmock and Fisher 17).
A Utilitarian will argue for the new housing development to be built, for it will bring happiness to people who will have new homes as well as new jobs. How do you know that tearing down the homes of various animals is the greatest consequence? How do you know that tearing down nature and animals homes will not upset a greater amount of people? There are people who protest new developments all the time to avoid gentrification. Utilitarianism is something I want to believe in, it’s a morality that seems to have to best interest at heart. It does makes sense in various cases, but not all. Unfortunately it’s an ethical morality I would not choose in the Trolley Dilemma.
To counteract Utilitarianism is Kantianism, which is an “ethical system where you treat others as ends and not as means. You must act according to the law; your actions should be a universal law. As well you must act as a legislating member of the Kingdom of Ends, where nothing moral can be inherently contradictory” (Rowe). The point of Kantianism is to follow the rules as best to your ability. For example, Batman vs. The Joker; one is clearly evil and kills massive amounts of people, while the other focuses on saving Gotham City. Batman strictly believes in not killing anyone, he captures and saves people. He will leave the punishment or imprisonment up to the authorities, which is a Kant morality. If batman was Utilitarianism the joker would have been dead a long time ago, thus saving tons of people because he focused on the greatest amount of happiness. That seems like a lot of pressure for someone to have. Batman has done the right thing and captured the bad guys, now it is up to the guards in the prison and the authority to hold up their end of the bargain. It is there duty to make sure no one escapes prison, they must follow the rules and law now. If Joker acted accordingly to the law then maybe we would not even need a batman. In the article “The Common Structure of Kantianism and Act-Utilitarianism” they explain that “every rational agent is capable of acting, on every occasion as a member of the Kingdom of Ends” (Woodard 247). I do not think I would consider The Joker to be a rational agent. Mental illness can affect the capability for anyone to act rational, for them to know the difference between right and wrong.
My decision in the Trolley Dilemma would be to stay on the track I was on and kill the 5 people. In Kantianism, one cannot use another as a means to an end (Rowe). If I flip the switch I’m choosing to kill 1 person, if I stay on the track I’m letting 5 people die. That is something I’m morally ok with. It’s something that didn’t occur to me until I read “Killing, Letting Die, and The Trolley Problem” that killing and letting someone die are two different things. Me flipping the switch would be on purpose and results in killing 1 person, me leaving the switch results in it being an accident because the breaks were damaged or not working. Morally there’s a difference, and it’s a difference I can live with. In Utilitarianism I would have to choose to flip the switch for the 1 to die for the greatest amount of happiness.
Ideally I would not like to be in this situation. Both Utilitarianism and Kantianism have some morality or ethics I agree and disagree with. It is also like playing a game of “Would you rather” for example would you rather chop off your foot or your hand. It is a hard choice, but it is important to know where you stand. You never know, you might be presented with a hard choice one day.