The Trolley Problem By Phillipa Foot

The Trolley Problem
The trolley problem as first constructed by Phillipa Foot presents a moral dilemma in which one has to place value on what is more important and what is morally right. In this situation, there is a runaway trolley barreling down the train tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a leaver. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. There are two options given; 1) do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. 2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side
However, since we have very similar options as before, the value and consequentiality will remain about the same with a few differences. Option one gives us the chance to not push the man and not influence the situation whatsoever. This option saves us from the guilt that we would have if we did push the man over, yet we still knew about this option and had a chance to save those five people but we did not do so and that guilt will come forth. Option two, once again, gives us the chance to do something about the circumstance and possibly save five lives. All of the people involved have value to their life and don’t deserve to have it snatched from them, but neither does the speculating man. Nevertheless, if it is in order to save five lives, is it then morally acceptable? In my opinion, it may not be morally acceptable, yet it is necessary. It is essentially a moral obligation because you had knowledge about the situation and could take action to save five lives regardless of whether that route is consequential or not. This is not much different from pulling the lever because the result will be the same, five lives saved for the sacrifice of one. Yet, the only
I agree with this approach because it is what most humans use to make decisions in their daily life without even realizing it. For example, if a situation comes to where you have to lie to someone in order to prevent any issues, most people will usually lie because it keeps both that person and everyone else satisfied and safe for the most part. Although it is morally wrong to lie, according to the utilitarian approach in this situation, it is morally acceptable to lie because of the benefits over harms for majority of people. This approach goes hand in hand with the trolley problem. While taking someone’s life is morally wrong, in this situation through the utilitarian approach, it is morally acceptable because saving five lives by sacrificing one provides the greatest volume of benefits over harms for the majority of people. Utilitarianism focuses more on the effects rather than the actions leading up to the effect of the situation. Consequently, from the utilitarian approach both situations from the trolley problem have the same result if we choose the similar options. Another reason why this approach is agreeable is because it is different from the traditional and rule based moral code while supporting the benefit of the majority. Traditional moral codes often say something