Argumentative Essay: Utilitarianism Versus Deontology

The scenario or dilemma faced by being the train conductor is one that requires instant action. Hence I think I should divert the train to the right, killing one person and more importantly, saving five. I support John Stuart Mill's utilitarianism because that is the one option that bears the least consequence (Vaughn & Lewis, 156). In other words, killing one person as opposed to five is the lesser of two evils. Deontology is the very opposite of utilitarianism (utilitarianism is where actions are judged as either wrong or right based on their consequences), and it focuses on imperatives as proposed by the philosopher Immanuel Kant (163). For example, the best imperative for the above scenario would have been "Don't kill!" and for that moment that would have been enough in Kantian ethics. However, as a train conductor, I face a special kind of moral quagmire where no action results in the death of five people.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Save 25%

In this paper, I will provide the differences between utilitarianism and deontology and why both the two theories can be functional interchangeably depending on the situation. I will highlight the place of impulses in decision making. On the other hand, I will also focus on the time factor in decision making. Personality too is something else- how would different people have reacted. These and others are the variables present when a person has to make split-second life or death choices. I will show why instinct plays a big role over logic in some cases and how idealism could be an enemy of personal accountability. I will start with Mills' utilitarianism to support my decision for killing one person and saving five others. Then I will critique Kant's categorical imperative, showing how it could have been useful in other situations, and why it is not the best option for the scenario I am facing

John Stuart Mill would probably want me to save as many people as I can, and that sadly means the death of the one person on the track, to cause the least amount of loss possible in the grand scale of things. It is about achieving the greater good and if that means sacrificing one life for the sake of the preservation of the majority. Mills makes an argument about the human desire to seek happiness and avoid causing pain as much as possible, as he says "the ultimate end, with reference to and for the sake of which all other things are desirable (whether we are considering our good or that of other people), is an existence exempt as far as possible from pain, and as rich as possible in enjoyments... (Vaughn & Lewis, 157)" According to me, Mill's utilitarianism was describing two extreme ideals about people's interactions in society. On one side of the extreme is a happiness which is desired by everyone and on the other extreme side is pain which nobody wants to have or cause. His reasoning here plants him firmly within the Moral Framework called "The Greater Good" where morality is judged by looking at the consequences/effects of our actions and taking the path of least damage, in other words, "the end justifies the means."

On the other hand, Kant reasons from the Moral framework called "The Right Action or Good Will," where morality is measured by considering an absolute moral obligation/duty or what we have to do. Thus he would most likely tell me to let neither the runaway train continue on its course nor turn to the right because murder is something humans should not do. Kant would want me to disregard the options and try my best as possible to stop the runaway train. For one thing, Kant's moral theory requires us to follow the Categorical Imperative: "So act as to treat humanity, whether in thine own person or in that of any other, in every case as an end withal, never as a means only." (Vaughn & Lewis ,165). According to Kant, people should not be treated as a means to an end. People are precious and should be considered as ends by their right; they should be treated as we would ourselves. What Kant means here is that it is absolutely wrong to kill a person no matter the situation, even if we are not in control of every variable. So you can see that he is primarily concerned about the universal sanctity of human life; that it is wrong to kill people and no manner of explanation can suffice for causing murder, and he would probably conclude that I should look for a way that I can save everybody.

I think I should turn the train to the right and kill one person, and live with the consequences of my actions be it guilt, a prison sentence or being fired from my position as a train conductor. Even though I might share some of the values Kant's position like the fact that murder is wrong. Kant would want me to consider his words: "A good will is good not because of what it performs or effects, not by its aptness for the attainment of some proposed end, but simply by the volition, that is, it is good in itself... (Vaughn & Lewis, 164). I believe that in this scenario the stakes involve human lives and hence I have to act. Hence, Mill's utilitarian theory would have come in handier than Kant's categorical imperative. However, idealism and reality rarely agree, and on this thought experiment, a decision has to be made, and not everyone will be happy. In this, though experiment time is of the essence; I have precious little of it. I realize that somebody else might have decided to look for ways to stop the train as Kant would suggest, which I think can be explained by the fact that people have varying personalities.

If I refuse to make any decision and let the train run its course, then my inaction will cause the death of five people. My decision could be based on instinct and impulsive reactions rather than logic too so there is the issue of being human- which guarantees errors. Suppose I survive which is highly likely, then five families will be on my case claiming that I am responsible for the death of their loved ones. I might even get charged for involuntary manslaughter. I concede that Kant's categorical imperative has its appeals. I nevertheless would decide to end the life of one person because that seems the only way I can preserve the lives of my passengers. My Moral Framework here seems to fit under the framework called "The Greater Good" because I am primarily focused on saving the most lives possible.

Work Cited

Vaughn, Lewis. "Philosophy Here and Now: Powerful Ideas in Everyday Life, International." New York/ Oxford: Oxford University Press (2016). Retrieved From https://www.vaultebooks.com/#/books/9780190207052/cfi/193!/4/[email protected]:20.0