As the author mentioned, this dilemma puts Mill’s Utilitarianism against Kant’s Formalism. Utilitarianism is satisfied as the sacrifice of the life of one person to save the lives of five others produces the greatest good for the greatest amount of people, and would occur in both cases. On the other hand, Kant’s Duty-Based Ethics expresses that “each person’s conscience imposes an absolute categorical imperative on the person to follow those courses of action that would be acceptable as universal principles for everyone. Kant emphasized that it was the intention to do one’s duty that was significant, not the actual results or consequences. Thus, Kant’s theory rejects taking any life and would simply let the train continue on it’s meant course of action. In this specific case study, Locke’s and Aristotle’s ethics are not relevant and do not apply.
In compliance with Utilitarianism, It is morally justified to steer the trolley onto the track where there is one workman, since that would be to deflect the train from threat from the five workmen (large group) to the one workman (small group). It is morally unjustified to push the fat
…show more content…
To present the morality of this, one must note the difference between ‘negative duties’ and ‘positive duties’. Negative duties being the act of refraining from harming lives whereas the positive obligations are to actively do good, in this case study being to save lives. As a matter of principle, the negative duties are always more urgent and weigh more than our positive duties, so that one is not justified in violating a negative duty in order to fulfill a positive duty of helping someone. In Case A, both groups are equal in fairness and both have accepted a job that has the inherent risk of being hit by a trolley. The fact of death is overlooked since the harm is unintentional and the switch is saving lives at the cost of