The trolley problem presents a challenging choice: should an individual be sacrificed to save the lives of five others? This moral dilemma reflects the consequences we face in politics, society, and war. When confronted with the decision to cause death or permit it, are we morally bound to kill for the greater good? It may appear that sacrificing one life to rescue others is ethically justifiable.
Although killing and letting die are different actions, they have distinct impacts on the human mind. Nonetheless, killing is deemed more morally wrong than allowing someone to die since it views individuals as mere instruments for advancing others’ interests, regardless of whether it prevents a greater number of deaths. Intentionally terminating another person’s life is considered considerably worse than permitting death to occur naturally. This will be further investigated by examining the concept of consent, distinguishing between redirecting harm and causing harm, and exploring the viewpoints of Christianity and deontological ethics.
The trolley problem involves comparing the value of one life to that of five lives. Some individuals argue that the worth of one life is inferior to that of five lives. However, this argument is only valid if the single person would have died regardless. The ethical dilemma assumes that the individual on the other track is simply a means to save the others, disregarding their consent and involvement. Additionally, altering the trolley’s path does not prevent harm; instead, it inflicts harm and effectively kills an innocent person implicated in this predicament.
Re-considering the presumption of consent, let’s consider a different scenario presented by BBC UK: There are five individuals who are critically ill and require five separate organ transplants to survive. Meanwhile, a perfectly healthy individual enters the hospital for a routine check-up. As the person responsible for making decisions, would you choose to sacrifice the healthy individual in order to save the five patients who would otherwise perish? This example highlights another instance where one life is sacrificed to save multiple lives. The majority of people would argue that it is morally unacceptable to kill the healthy individual in order to preserve the lives of the five dying patients.
There is no distinction between the problem at hand and the trolley problem because sacrificing one life to save five demonstrates that killing is a more morally reprehensible act than allowing someone to die. Both Christianity and Immanuel Kant uphold this belief, stating that killing is the more sinister form of euthanasia. According to Kilner, Christians should never intentionally cause death, as God has dominion over such matters. However, Christian doctors and their patients may accept death in submission to God’s sovereignty, with tranquility and hopeful anticipation of positive outcomes.
They do not condone intentional death in any circumstances, but they do allow the natural course of death for those who are destined to die. In basic terms, Immanuel Kant’s deontological ethics exhibit similarities with the Christian perspective. According to deontological ethics, the moral value of an action is not determined by its outcome. Kant asserts that the action itself determines its morality, rather than considering the consequences of the choice. When faced with the prospect of killing one innocent individual to save multiple lives, this action is not morally acceptable since killing is inherently immoral in all situations (First Philosophy).
According to the consent assumption, passive euthanasia is considered more moral than active euthanasia since we assume that the person involved is willing to die. Another factor supporting this view is the harm caused to those who are not directly involved, also relying on the consent assumption. The Christian perspective adds further support, stating that death is immoral when it is intentional. Additionally, deontological ethics, introduced by Immanuel Kant, reinforce this argument by emphasizing that morality is determined by the action itself rather than its consequences.
The utilitarianism view, first introduced by Jeremy Bentham and later revised by John Mill, believes that killing and letting die are morally equivalent. This view quantifies the measurable properties such as intensity and duration to determine the permissibility of an action, with a permissible action being one that provides the greatest balance of pleasure over pain. From a consequential standpoint, the moral standing is determined by the results.
Utilitarianism prioritizes the quantity of outcomes rather than the inherent moral value of an action. This is evident in the trolley problem, where utilitarianism advocates for killing to maximize overall lives saved. The well-being of individuals not directly involved is disregarded because utilitarianism believes one person’s death causes less suffering than five people dying. However, it is important to acknowledge that others’ lives should not be treated as a mere means to an end without their consent. In this scenario, killing those not directly implicated would result in more suffering instead of pleasure.
Making the decision to kill someone without their consent, causing harm, or ending the life of an innocent person who is not involved brings more pain than pleasure. If a decision maker had not intervened, the lives of the five individuals would have been lost. Comparatively, it is morally justified to allow innocent people to die rather than choosing to kill them in order to save others. Furthermore, the Smith and Jones case presents a false moral dilemma as they stand to greatly benefit from their young nephew’s death by inheriting a substantial amount of wealth.
Jones and Smith both have intentions to harm their nephews. Jones plans to kill his nephew while the boy is bathing, pushing him over and causing him to hit his head on the edge of the bath. He intends to render him unconscious and, if needed, drown him underwater, all while making it appear accidental. However, drowning the child turns out to be unnecessary. Similarly, Smith shares the same intent for his nephew. By chance, the boy accidentally falls over and hits his head, rendering himself unconscious just like Jones planned. Smith waits for the boy to resurface from the water, prepared to drown him if necessary, but ultimately this action is also unnecessary. As a result, both nephews end up dead in this situation.
Jones killed his nephew, while Smith allowed his nephew to die (Killing & Letting Die: Bare differences and clear differences). This situation gives the impression that killing and letting die hold the same moral weight. Despite Smith not directly killing his nephew, he still bears responsibility for his nephew’s death. Smith’s intention for his nephew to die and his failure to fulfill his duty as the caregiver place him in the realm of killing rather than merely allowing death to occur. Thus, the Jones and Smith case fails to demonstrate equivalence between killing and letting die.
The morality of active euthanasia is inferior to that of passive euthanasia because prolonging one person’s life should not come at the expense of others. To better distinguish between killing and letting die, modifications must be made to the trolley problem’s assumptions. In order to demonstrate that killing is more morally objectionable than letting die in the context of the trolley problem, additional information needs to be introduced. Specifically, we will include the fact that the individual on the alternative set of tracks or the large man did not consent to sacrificing their life to save the five people. By doing so, we shift away from a mere numerical calculation and begin treating this individual as a sentient being.
The idea that the person in the alternate route is a diversion of harm is challenged. Instead, harm is effectively caused to someone who would not have been in the dilemma. To be truly moral, decision-makers must step back and allow the outcome to unfold naturally. Killing disrespects people and treats them as a means to benefit others. Allowing someone to die simply follows what would have happened if the decision-maker was not present. Taking a life does not align with moral justice because a life should not be treated as a means to an end.
The role of consent in decision-making is illustrated in the modified trolley problem. Without obtaining consent, changing the trolley’s path to save five people would harm someone who was not initially involved, which is morally incorrect. However, if consent is given, it can be assumed that the person on the alternative path would have died anyway and harm is diverted instead of caused. This understanding helps decision-makers acknowledge that one person’s life should not be used solely to save another’s. Ultimately, active euthanasia is regarded as worse than passive euthanasia. In a world without a definitive right answer, choosing the option that causes the least harm is considered the correct choice.
Works Cited
- First Philosophy. Peterborough: Broadview Press, 2011.
- BBC UK. Active and Passive Euthanasia. 2012. 15 October 2012 http://www. bbc. co. uk/ethics/euthanasia/overview/activepassive_1. shtml.
- “Killing & Letting Die: Bare differences and clear differences. ” 15 April 1996. University of Colorado. 15 October 2012 http://www. colorado. edu/philosophy/paper_oddie_
- K&LD. pdf. Kilner, J. F. Dignity and Dying: A Christian Appraisal. Grand Rapids: William B. Eerdmans, 1996. 69-83.
