So, i am taking an Ethics class, and i have never really paid attention in class, but i have an exam so while studying, i came across something interesting that could be debated on, i hope this section is active really.


Deontology - This is a rule-based ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on adherence to duties and rules. This doesn't necessarily mean the law or religion; but it means come up with a list of rules governing your actions based on your own morality and stick to it.

Utilitarianism - This is a consequentialist ethical system that judges the morality of an action based on what the effects of that action are. Specifically, it seeks to either maximize pleasure (positive or default utilitarianism) or to minimize pain (negative utilitarianism).

It is often illustrated by an example of a runaway train heading towards a fork in the tracks: If left to itself, the train will veer left and annihilate 5 people stuck on the track. Conversely, you have access to the switch that will cause the train to veer right and kill a single individual stuck on that side of the track. (Why they are stuck I don't know. Perhaps they are tied. Perhaps they are deaf, blind and/or oblivious to their oncoming doom.)

A deontologist (or my girlfriend at least) would not pull the switch. The reason is that it will violate the rule against killing someone, while letting 5 people die through inaction will not.

A utilitarian (me) would gladly throw the switch, arguing that 5 dead people is worse than one. (This gets stickier when we consider that it may be my mother alone on the right track, but we'll assume here that all individuals are of equal moral worth to the person at the switch.)

A "gotcha" addendum to this scenario is one in which there is no switch: You can let the train kill the 5 people or you can push a fat man in front of the train to stop it. Lots of people would consider this murder but not throwing the switch.

With the very large caveat that we can't be confident that pushing someone in front of the train will save the 5 with the same surety as throwing the switch, I would have no problem pushing the fat man if it was guaranteed to save them. Rather, I would have a lot of emotional problems with it personally, but upon dispassionate reflection I feel that it is the moral thing to do. Or at least not immoral.

One issue I responded to her with was vaccination. A small number of people will be severely harmed or even killed by vaccinations, but the overall effect is that many more will be saved from disease and epidemics. This is the point where she called me an asshole, since she obviously agrees with vaccines. She points out that a big consideration for deontologists is intent and motive. While throwing the switch on the train tracks is intended to kill someone, vaccines are intended to help them. I argued that this is a distinction without a difference, because throwing the switch is intended to save many at the expense of the few, just like vaccines.

Who is right?

To me, it isnt about who is right, i think it is more of moral justification, Will you go to bed at night and sleep peacefully knowing that you saved five people and one died? or will you feel guily?

Or will you say to yourself, if i cant save a, i cant save b, c d, e or f?

One show i will point to is 24, if you are a fan, you will know what i mean, Bauer at some point, had to sacrifice some people lives for the greater good, and we all know he was summoned to court for it in one episode.

For me, i will gladly torture the heck out of a man, to the point of almost killing him if it will save 24 other people on the bus. I wont sit down there and watch 24 people die because someone will question my morality about killing someone. To me, it is all about the greater good.

This is an educational topic, lets make it fun.


I hope this is the right section for this though, if not, i hope i wont get banned!