Philosophy Final Paper
Utilitarianism, an ethical theory first proposed by Bentham, dispersed the idea that, when making ethical decisions, one must choose to act in a way that maximizes the total net pleasure. Regarding the utilitarianism’s rule of maximizing pleasure, there is always the question of “whose net pleasure matters?”. A utilitarianist would answer that, everyone’s pleasure matters because net pleasure is determined from an objective perspective. Bentham determined the way to define pleasure is through the use of a complicated balancing equation which consists of hedons, amount of pleasure, weighed against dolors, amount of pain, to determine total net pleasure resulting from an action. To determine how much hedons and dolors to use, one must consider all possible consequences that may result from the action itself. This theory was further refined by Mill who changed the way total net happiness is determined. Mill stated, it is true that both good and bad consequences must be considered when determining net happiness, as Bentham stated; however, Mill stated that only the quality of the consequences must be considered, not the numerical quantity.
The principles of utilitarianism are often applied when discussing the philosophical matter known as the trolley problem. The trolley problem, a thought experiment, or strategy, was proposed to prove that utilitarianism is wrong. The original trolley problem is a situation in which there is a fast-approaching train on a track with a railroad switch, isolated by a vast field. You are the only individual with the ability to change the train’s trajectory. You have two options: switch the lever or don’t switch the lever. The lever determines which track the train continues on; one with six people tied to it, or another with only one person tied to the track. If you decide not to switch the lever, then six people will die; otherwise, if you pull the lever, then one person will die instead. The trolley problem involves a decision: to pull the lever or not, effectively killing either one person or six. There are many versions of the trolley problem; minuscule details can be tweaked, creating new variations.
Some argue that utilitarianism always, without fail, requires everyone to always pull the lever in the original trolley problem. However, this is a false belief. The principles of utilitarianism do not always require one to pull the lever, causing the train to change trajectories and hit one person instead of the intended six. A utilitarianist does not only consider quantity when making moral decisions. Suppose that the one person on the track is a world-renowned doctor, while the six people on the other track are mass murderers. This is an example of when a utilitarianist would not choose to switch the lever and kill one versus six people. In this situation, the principles of utilitarianism would not support switching the lever and instead condone allowing the train to continue on its trajectory to the six criminals. This is due to the utilitarianism’s maxim: attaining the maximum net happiness. Even if there are a few people made unhappy by the death of the six murderers (i.e. family and friends of the deceased), the net happiness of society still will not decrease. However, if the one doctor is to be killed instead, the net happiness of the society will decrease significantly. Even if the world-renowned doctor had enemies who wished for his death, there is still a larger proportion of happiness that will result from the preservation of the doctor’s life compared to the preservation of six murderers’ lives. In this case, the quantity of people rescued is irrelevant since a utilitarianist would take the quality of those who are saved into consideration when determining total net happiness in society.
Another example of this principle is when the one person tied to the track is always surrounded by an existing network of caring people, while the six people on the second track have no existing social network. These six people are socially isolated from society, including their own family. If a utilitarianist analyzed this variation of the original trolley problem, they would come to a conclusion similar to the murderers versus doctor example. If the one with an existing social network was hit by the train, the net happiness of the world would decrease, while if the six people with no existing social network were killed, the net happiness of the world would be largely unchanged. This reiterates the rebuttal against always choosing quantity over quality. One must consider how it affects the qualitative net happiness rather than the quantitative amount of people and happiness.
Additionally, the principles of utilitarianism would not always pull the lever due to a possible situation of fungibility, which refers to the exchange of something of equal value. Suppose that the one on the alternative track is considered neutral in society, while the six people on the track are collectively neutral. Three of the people are murderers while the other three are doctors who have saved just as many people as the murderers have killed. This is an example of when a utilitarianist would not always choose to switch the lever. There would be no defense in support on why one would choose to kill the one person who is equal to the six on the other side.
Regardless, there are some who maintain their stance against utilitarianism and would continue to argue that a utilitarianist would always choose to switch the lever. The trolley problem was created to demonstrate that utilitarianism is wrong since the decision to kill one person or six involves more than simply happiness. The trolley problem attempts to prove that a utilitarianist would base their action on something other than an increase of happiness. This is against the principles of utilitarianism of doing actions to maximize happiness. They may protest that the decision to choose to kill the six people could be a matter of justice, rather than happiness. A decision based on justice is a fair and unbiased decision about society. This is exemplified in the doctor and murderers’ example. Suppose those murderers were on death row anyways when they were tied onto the track. Choosing not to pull the lever would kill the six murderers out of justice, not happiness.
However, this claim is false since the act of attaining justice leads to the ultimate end desire of happiness. Happiness is the underlying reason for making moral decisions based on justice. A moral decision made to increase justice is a roundabout way of maximizing happiness. There are many arguments for the claim that a utilitarianist will always choose to switch the lever in the original trolley problem. However, the presented counter-arguments against this main claim contradict this. As a final point, the trolley problem does not require all agents of utilitarianism to pull the lever. There are situations where a utilitarianist will choose quality over quantity, which means that a utilitarianist does not pull the lever. When making moral decisions based on utilitarianism principles, one must always perform the action that results in maximizing the net amount of pleasure and happiness.