Essay Sample on Streetcar Dilemma: A Classic Ethical Dilemma

Introduction

The Out-of-Control Streetcar dilemma is an example of a classic dilemma in ethics. The problem statement of the dilemma can take various forms, but the general structure is usually the same. It usually begins by putting the audience in a position of power and asking them to make a choice, and irrespective of the side they landed on; their choice would be morally questionable. In the case of the streetcar dilemma, the audience is asked to imagine that they control a track switch for the streetcar. One day, you notice that the streetcar has lost control and is speeding towards the point where the tracks diverge; the point that you control. On one set of tracks, there are five engineers working on the track and cannot hear the incoming vehicle to make a timely reaction, i.e., clear the track. If the streetcar is to continue on its current path, it will definitely run over the five engineers, effectively killing them on the spot. You, however, have a choice to switch the track to follow the other route. On the route is a single engineer, also working on the track and utterly oblivious of the impending doom. Now, you have to make a choice of whether to do nothing and let the streetcar kill the five engineers, or alternatively re-route the path taken by the streetcar to only kill the single engineer effectively saving the other five. Which is the best course of action?

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

Save 25%

The problem can be boiled down to two opposing moral schools of thought, a classical dilemma that has existed since antiquity. The utilitarian view necessitates that the most suitable action is one that accomplishes the most good for the largest number (Koehn, 1995). This is in contrast to the deontological view that dictates that the particular actions, such as the killing of an innocent person, irrespective of the intent, is simply unacceptable. Considering the streetcar dilemma, the utilitarian perspective recommends that it is justified to kill the one person and save the other five as it is the optimal solution and the best thing to do. On the other hand, deontological reasoning states that it does not matter that you are saving five lives, simply taking an innocent life is wrong (Koehn, 1995). The deontological reasoning may seem counterintuitive, but it's actually an opinion that is held by most people, and this would be a tough decision to make for the average person.

In everyday life, we may encounter such instances where these schools of thought may clash. Their consequences, however, may not be as dire, or life-threatening as such but are still analogous. The example above obviously is flawed and probably counterintuitive upon analysis, but it is merely a thought experiment that prompts us to ponder on the questions pertaining to ethics, morality, logic and the consequences for the actions that we make. An example in everyday life where this would occur is maybe when you are given 20 dollars by your parents for lunch. On your way to the restaurant, you meet a group of homeless kids, and they beg you to buy them lunch. The example is not entirely similar, and it brings in other dimensions, and it is also not as severe, but some aspect of it is relatable to the streetcar dilemma. Naturally, most people simply ignore the street urchins and grunt that they do not have change to spare event without giving the matter a second thought. However, in the spirit of engagement, we can say that you consider their case and humor them. You ponder on the fact that the children probably have not eaten for days and yourself, however hungry, you might still get a meal later in the day. But since you are starving and if you go back home without having eaten, you would be compelled to lie to your parents that the money was stolen so that they could give you more so that you could go back to the restaurant and get fed. The utilitarianism school of moral thought dictates that the best course of action is one that benefits; thus, you would be prompted to give out the cash to the street urchins so that they can eat and paying the price of lying to your parents is not really such a big deal. On the other hand, the deontological perspective lays emphasis on the fact that you should always do the right thing, irrespective of whether the consequences are undesirable or more devastating than the latter. In this case, there is no need to lie to the parents; you would instead just go and eat at the restaurant just like you had initially planned, or alternatively, if you choose to help the street urchins, be sure to not lie to your parents.

Conclusion

In most cases, research in the area of psychology has shown that most people agree with utilitarianism deeming it morally acceptable compared to the deontological perspective. The reason being that the person has to live with the thought that they had the opportunity to save five people but actually decided to do nothing. Maybe if only one person died, the burden on their conscience would be lighter to bear. On the other hand, it is entirely unacceptable to sentence an innocent person to die. Deontologists can probably rationalize their actions or in this case inaction by saying that maybe the five were destined to die, as part of say, some higher design but the other guy is innocent, and it would be morally wrong to kill an innocent person even if it is for the benefit of the majority. The reason why we struggle with this issue is that the moral institutions we built have evolved us into good social partners to our fellow man and because we learn from a very young age that exhibition of towards others is rewarded by punishment, we tend to deter from any actions that cause others harm.

References

Koehn, D. (1995). A role for virtue ethics in the analysis of business practice. Business Ethics Quarterly, 533-539.