Ethics 10 Essay: Consequentialism, Utilitarianism, and Trolley Dilemma

This essay explores the Trolley Dilemma, a thought experiment in ethics, examining the application of consequentialism and utilitarianism. The essay explains the core concepts of these theories and their relevance to the dilemma, where a choice must be made between saving a larger number of lives at the cost of one. The analysis highlights the consequentialist perspective, which prioritizes outcomes, and the utilitarian principle of maximizing overall happiness. The essay discusses how these theories provide justification for sacrificing one life to save five, contrasting this with deontological viewpoints that condemn such actions. The essay also references similar ethical scenarios like the fat man problem and concludes by reinforcing the consequentialist and utilitarian stance in the Trolley Dilemma, where the loss of one life is considered negligible compared to saving multiple lives.

Running head: Ethics 1
Ethics
Student’s name
Institution Affiliation

ETHICS 2
Ethics
The trolley dilemma presents a case that rests on two concepts that are consequentialist
and utilitarianism theories. It is the application of these theories to the trolley dilemma that best
explains the best approach that could be taken. In this context, it is noble to save the five people
at the expense of one (BBC, 2020). Thus, both dilemmas present the trolley dilemma which is a
moral paradox that was first presented in 1967 by Philippa Foot in paper dubbed abortion and the
doctrine of double impact. Apart from solving the dilemma, the trolling question led to further
research regarding philosophical quandary regarding the issue, a matter still being debated today.
The trolley dilemma is a matter of human morality and a perfect illustration of a
philosophical perspective known as consequentialism (Edmundson, 2012). According to
consequentialism, it postulates that morality is explained by the consequences of various actions,
thus, the consequences are the only important variable (Bonevac, 2020). However, the
consequences that are allowable and which ones have not created another question. Using the
illustrations of the trolley dilemma the consequences from both events appear the same where
one individual dies and five others become survivors (BBC, 2020). In particular, for both
illustrations, five individuals live as a consequence of the death of one individual. Initially, both
appear to be justified and pulling the lever seems acceptable while saving one man at the expense
of the five is forbidden. Hence, it draws the line between killing and letting an individual die.
Utilitarianism postulates that an action is considered as moral when it yields the utmost
happiness for the highest number of individuals (Markovits, 2020). The approach’s focus on
consequences demonstrates that it is morally allowable to hurt someone if it translates to total,
more individuals benefiting as a consequence (Deigh, 2010). The utilitarian concept asserts that

ETHICS 3
the action that accommodates the maximum number of individuals to live should be the moral
one. The trolley dilemma is similar to another commonly referenced case known as the fat man
which seeks to establish whether pushing a fat man off the bridge to halt a trolley and block it
from killing five people. In the context of utilitarianism, it would be right to hit the smallest
number of people, in this case, one without paying attention to who those people are. Thus, I
would flip the switch to save the five as they would be the maximum who would enjoy the
greatest satisfaction that is being alive at the expense of one who will be hit by the trolley.
Though deontologists conversely argue against both approaches asserting that lose of life as
immoral and strongly condemn both actions as immoral as they deem both actions as a deliberate
action by an individual to terminate the life of others.
In conclusion, both the consequentialist and utilitarianism approaches are in agreement
with saving the majority and having one person being used as a sacrifice. Thus, in both cases, it
is morally to hit the switch to save the five and forfeit the one like the loss of one is considered
negligible compared to the effect of losing five lives.

ETHICS 4
References
BBC. (2020). BBC - Ethics - Introduction to ethics: Consequentialism. Bbc.co.uk. Retrieved from
http://www.bbc.co.uk/ethics/introduction/consequentialism_1.shtml.
Bonevac, D. (2020). Consequetialism [Video]. Retrieved from Bonevac, D. (2020). [Video]. Retrieved
from https://youtu.be/pBu02AEczA8.
Deigh, J. (2010). An Introduction to Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
Edmundson, W. (2012). An introduction to rights. Cambridge University Press.
Markovits, J. (2020). Philosophy:Ethics-utilitarianism,Part 1. [Video]. Retrieved from
https://youtu.be/uvmz5E75ZIA.