By Cozette Calderon
We make decisions everyday—picking between good and bad. Our perception of the consequences of our actions, for both ourselves and others, mold our decisions. However, some may be making decisions with some philosophical bases without recognizing it. Or, some may be struggling when making decisions and would enjoy having guidance. Perhaps, you’ve been faced with the infamous hypothetical “Trolly Problem,” and now you’re in a frenzy of trying to understand moral philosophies. So, let’s explore three types of philipsocial theories around which people may base their decisions.
DEONTOLOGY
“If one step is morally wrong, the entire situation is wrong.”
Deontology was created by Immaunual Kant with the purpose of blocking human’s feelings from interfering with moral decisions while still valuing human’s individually. Kant believed that a human’s worth and dignity must be incorporated within decision making because one should not use other people merely as a way to boost themselves up in rank or to achieve success quicker if it harms others. Deontology aims to avoid weighing the consequences of actions by merely looking at the actions themselves. Part of deontology is to simply follow rules: Don’t lie, cheat, or steal. However, the main ideology of deontology is that even if the end result would be good, if the steps to achieve the ending have even the slightest immorality tied to it, the entire situation becomes corrupt and should be aborted.
APPLICATION
One example that shows the downside of deontology can be seen with the hypothetical of a software technician and a nuclear missle’s launch. Imagine that you are a military software technician. You have just been given warning that an accidental nuclear missile launch is about to take place. To stop the nuclear missle’s launch, you have to break into the software system. You don’t have time to get permission from your supervisor. By breaking into the system, you are engaging in a type of lying and cheating. According to deontology, the act of stopping the nuclear missile should not be done unless one can do it without lying, cheating, or doing some immoral action to reach the conclusion. This means, you allow the nuclear missile to be launched and kill thousands.
An application in which deontology proves to be helpful is when considering cheating on a test. You haven’t studied, and you really need an A to pass the class. The smartest kid in the class sits right next to you, making it easy to cheat off of that student’s paper. Following the rules of deontology, there are two big issues with deciding to cheat. The first is that cheating is morally wrong, so engaging in that action to reach an end result makes the end result immoral and bad regardless. The second issue is that you’d be using the smartest kid as a ‘means to an end’, not considering their feelings or their well being. So, you would not cheat on the test as a follower of deontology.
APPLICATION ON THE TROLLY PROBLEM
You are on a moving trolly. You have been told that there is a fork in the road ahead. On the left are 5 people tied to the tracks. On the right is 1 person tied to the tracks. You must decide which side to send the trolly.
If one was to use deontology to decide which way to send the trolley, one would not get very far. Since deontology looks at actions and doesn’t weigh the consequences, deontology wouldn’t lead one to make a decisive decision in this case. Instead, it only leads one to the conclusion that murder is morally wrong, and the “Trolly Problem” forces one to make an immoral decision.
CONSEQUENTIALISM
“The ends justify the means.”
Consequentialism’s creation is most often credited to Jermey Bentham, though other philosophers like John Stuart Mill and Henry Sidgwick were also major proponents. One of the driving forces behind Consequentialism is the idea that one cannot change the past but can influence the future. In order to make decisions, one should consider the results of the action and how it influences others and oneself. There are many sub-branches of consequentialism, but the idea of focusing on the results and consequences of one’s actions remains consistent. If one is interested in seeing the slight differences of the branches, click the link attached above. I will only be discussing consequentialism without any qualifiers. Consequentialism states that the way to judge if an action is right or wrong is by looking at the result of the action. If the result is morally right, then the entire action is deemed morally right.
APPLICATION
You and a friend are kidnapped by a murder. Fortunately, your friend was able to break out of the bindings around her wrists and is currently hiding behind a desk near a closed window out of which she will try to escape. You pretend to be knocked out, only opening your eyes when the kidnapper confronts you to ask where your friend is. Do you lie? Following deontology, no. Following, consequentialism? Yes. By lying, you give your friend a chance to escape, which potentially leads to saving her life and your life. The consequence is saving lives instead of telling the truth to a kidnapper and potentially murdering your friend.
The downside to consequentialism can be seen in this borrowed example: “Let’s suppose economists could prove that the world economy would be stronger, and that most people would be happier, healthier, and wealthier, if we just enslaved 2% of the population…when judging the idea solely on its results, as classic consequentialism does, then “the end justifies the means.”
APPLICATION ON THE TROLLY PROBLEM
Alright, deontology has failed you in the “Trolly Problem”. You have determined that the situation is morally bad, but how should you make a decision? Let’s apply consequentialism. You have to look at the results. If you allow the trolly to go left, you’d be killing five people. The result of that is that you’re a murderer and five families now must pay funeral fees and mourn. If you allow the trolley to go right, you’re a murder and only 1 family must mourn and pay funeral fees. What does consequentialism tell us? The situation is morally wrong. Still, it doesn’t tell us how to fully choose. That’s where consequentialism partners with utilitarianism .
UTILITARIANISM
“The most good for the most people.”
Utilitarianism may be considered a sibling to consequentialism. Utilitarianism’s father is considered to be the same: Jermey Bentham, while also acknowledging Mills and Sidgwick. Utilitarianism tells us that an option should be chosen and is morally right if the most amount of people are helped. There is a branch of consequentialism that states, “an act is morally right if and only if that act maximizes the good, that is, if and only if the total amount of good for all minus the total amount of bad for all is greater than this net amount for any incompatible act available to the agent on that occasion.” However, such a branch is often considered to be utilitarianism. Utilitarianism promotes that an action is moral if the most people are helped based on the results, and, when making a decision, one goes with the option that helps the most people.
APPLICATION
“If a house stands in the way of a highway being built, a utilitarian perspective may argue that the house should be bulldozed. More benefits to more people will come from one person losing their house in return for millions of people getting faster access to work every day.”
APPLICATION ON THE TROLLY PROBLEM.
There’s no time left. You’re 45 seconds away from the fork in the road. Which way are you turning? Let’s use utilitarianism. If you turn left, 5 people will be killed. If you turn right, one person will be killed. Letting five people live is the most amount of people helped, meaning you turn right to kill the one person.
Congratulations. You’re still a murderer, but according to utilitarianism, you made the right choice.
beniciapaw.com 