The Trolley Problem and Fat Man Case Essay

The trolley problem, fat man case present dilemmas that place the reader in a difficult position. Many people find it hard to answer the question. In "the trolley" five men are in danger, and the only way to save them is to swerve and kill one man instead. In "fat man case" the choice is between murder and a horrendous accident. In both instances, the reader is caught between a rock and a hard place. The issue has been subject to much debate over the years with different schools of thought coming up with their interpretations and perspectives.

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

Save 25%

The right action in the two cases depends on one's own belief and worldview. In "the Trolley" the choice between the two may be simpler to decide. On a personal level, it would be better to swerve and hit the single man. This is because the consequences of hitting this individual are much easier to face as opposed to harming five people. Assuming the impact could kill the five men, turning the trolley into the path of the single man is the only logical option because one life is expended to safe five. These five families get to rejoice and enjoy the company of their father or loved one for a little longer while only one has to grieve. This is the lesser of two evils since people would find it easier to cope with the outcome. Others may view this as a simplistic approach to this, but there are few who will see value in hitting the five men to save one.

On the other hand, the fat man is a different prospect. From a personal point of view, it would be better to do nothing. In this case, the fat man is safe, out of harm's way. Shoving him to his death in the guise of saving five lives does not hide the fact that the act is pure murder. This choice is different from the trolley because the fat man is not, in any way involved in the episode. Every life is precious, and it is therefore callous, from a moral standpoint, to use the fat man as a tool of rescue. The deliberate manner in which the fat man would be inserted into this situation is the fact that creates a moral dilemma. Therein lies the difference in the two scenarios.

The Fat man case is different from the Trolley case because of the nature of the decision. In the trolley, every person within the story is in danger of being hit. The question, therefore, is how many can and should be harmed. It is an either/or situation. If one was to do nothing, someone was going to get hurt. The resultant accident would not be against the law neither would it because of guilt or long-term repercussions. It also has an element of heroism and sacrifice. Often, the single person it would probably take the same course of action if the shoe was on the other foot. The decision was on numbers not right and wrong. In the Fat man, the situation is a bit complicated. The fat man is an innocent bystander. There is where the bit of right and wrong comes in. Even in law, such a deliberate act would attract charges and probably a jail sentence if found guilty. In an either/ or situation the choice is already forced upon the person it is only a matter of left or right. On the other hand, the Fat man is not in the either-or scenario. There is no need to insert oneself into the trolley situation even if there are five people in danger. The morality angle is what affects the decision whether or not to throw the fat man into the path of the trolley. In "the trolley" most people would choose to go one way or the other, but as for the fat man, there is likelihood, in a real-world scenario, that most people would opt to do nothing.

Deontology was a theory espoused by Emmanuel Kant in which rules determine what is right and wrong. Kant states that ethical actions can only be judged by universal moral laws. Deontology believes in laws like "Don't lie. Don't steal. Don't cheat." Which are present in every religion and all societies. Deontology presents a simple approach compared to the other theories because it calls for people to simply follow the rules to be on the right moral side of the debate. It leaves ethical perspectives and understanding based on natural intuition. Consequentialism calls for the review of the costs and benefits of a particular scenario, but deontology has a set path to an ethical decision. It takes away the risks of subjectivity because one only has to refer to rules that have been set. The main criticism of deontology is that it is rigid and focused on set results leaving very little wriggle room. Some deontological decisions may appear insensitive and heartless. It is wrong to kill, but in some situations, it might be necessary. One might have to shoot one or two attackers who have invaded the house. From a deontological point of view, this is still wrong no matter the circumstances (Bowen and Prescott).

In "The trolley" Kant would opt to hit the single person. Morally and universally, the course of action that results in the least harm is often encouraged and supported. It is natural human instinct to help other humans and to keep others from harm. In the "fat man" Kant would refuse to shove the fat man to his death. This is because such an act is illegal in law and goes against inherent human morals. Kant and deontologists would not even consider the option of using the fat man to help the five people. In this case, doing nothing would be the deontological way out. Therefore, the course of action proffered earlier in this paper is perfectly in line with deontological approaches.

Utilitarianism is a theory that states that right or wrong is determined by the outcomes of the actions taken. Utilitarianism is a type of consequentialism. Mill stated that the ethical choice is the one that presents the highest amount of good to the largest amount of people. It is often called upon to justify war and conflict. Utilitarianism is popular amongst businesspeople because it gives moral reasoning to business decisions regarding costs and benefits. Utilitarianism's greatest weakness is the inability to tell, in the long term, if the consequences were good or bad. For example, it may have been good to drop the Atomic bombs in Japan at the height of the war but the consequences regarding health that it has had on the people of Japan to this day is morally questionable (Mill).

Mill in "the trolley" could have still hit the single worker. This is because it is the course of action that has the biggest benefit for the largest amount of people. This aligns with the utilitarian concept, and the personal perspective suggested earlier. As for the "fat man" Mill would advocate for shoving the fat man over to save the five men. This is because the need to save the men and the benefit that will result from this makes such an option attractive to a utilitarian even if choosing such an action will be wrong in law.

Conclusion

In conclusion, both instances have the reader between a rock and a hard place. The right action in the two cases depends on one's own belief and worldview. In "the Trolley," on a personal level, it would be better to swerve and hit the single man. This is because the consequences of hitting this individual are much easier to face as opposed to harming five people. On the other hand, in the fat man, from a personal point of view, it would be better to do nothing because the act is pure murder. In "The trolley" Kant would opt to hit the single person. Morally and universally, the course of action that results in the least harm is often encouraged and supported. In the "fat man" Kant would refuse to shove the fat man to his death. This is because such an act is illegal in law and goes against inherent human morals. Mill in "the trolley" could have still hit the single worker. This is because it is the course of action that has the biggest benefit for the largest amount of people. As for the "fat man" Mill would advocate for shoving the fat man over to save the five men. This is because of the need to save the men and the benefit that will result from it.

Works cited

Bowen, Shannon A., and Paul Prescott. "Kant's contribution to the ethics of communication." Ethical Space: The International Journal of Communication Ethics 12 (2015): 38-44.

Mill, John Stuart. "Utilitarianism." Seven Masterpieces of Philosophy. Routledge, 2016. 337-383.