Utilitarian and Deontological theories

Deontological and Utilitarian Theories

Both the deontological and utilitarian theories may apply if you are a train conductor about to run over 5 individuals who refuse to get off the track or decide to divert to a different track and instead kill one man. Kant, one of the primary proponents of deontological theory, believes that we are compelled to act in accordance with a set of rules. So, according to Kant, it is the rules that provide us instruction on how to act and thus pass judgment on our acts. Utilitarianism on the other hand point states that moral actions are those that derive the maximum amount of pleasure. Therefore, as a train conductor, I would direct the train to the other track and hence kill one person as opposed to 5 people.

John Stuart’s View on Utilitarianism

In this instance, John Stuart would want me to divert the train to the track that has one person. John Stuart is of the opinion that utilitarianism promotes actions that give the highest amount of pleasure as opposed to a lower pleasure. When as a conductor for instance you decide to run over the 5 people as opposed to one, it follows that there will be more pain and suffering. Injuring or killing five people is impactful as it affects more people and their families and hence gets much more people involved as opposed to killing one person (Lippert-Rasmussen 15). John Stuart affirms that some types of happiness are “base” in the sense that they do not derive the maximum amount of happiness. Killing 5 people will result in more families being affected and more lives lost. Utilitarianism attempts to satisfy a pleasure of higher quality even if it might be accompanied by some form of discomfort. If as the conductor I was to abide by the principles of utilitarianism, I would divert the track and run over one person to maximize the amount of pleasure of not killing 5 people.

Mill’s Perspective on Pleasure and Happiness

Mill states that, “It is better to be a human being dissatisfied than a pig satisfied; better to be Socrates dissatisfied than a fool satisfied. And if the fools, or the pig, are of a different opinion, it is because they only know their side of the question.” In his argument, he affirms that people who often enjoy a “higher” quality often derive more pleasure and hence rationality as opposed to those that on a “lower” quality. In choosing a higher pleasure, one chooses to change the track and run over one man as opposed to the five. Basing on Stuart’s opinion, even though the act would result in the taking of one life, the society at large would benefit from the 5 saved lives. According to Schultz and Varouxakis (27) possessing a “noble character” makes the larger society happier as opposed to the individual. Stuart’s reasoning aligns him with the general tenets of the moral frameworks of utilitarian theory which states that one should maximize pleasure and minimize pain.

Kant’s Duty Theory

Kant, on the other hand, has a different perspective of ethics and hence he emphasizes on the duty theory. Kant states that we are all morally indebted to act in harmony with the general rules and guidelines which define the rationality of our actions. Kant would not approve of any of the above acts because he states that the intentions of an action are independent of the outcome. In his argument, he claims that our actions should be means in themselves as opposed to means to an end. With regards to Kant’s states that, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” The norms of the society and human conscience discourage killing at all costs and thereby changing the track and killing one person as opposed to the five does not change the intent of the action (Liu 110). From Kant’s explanation, it would be a moral duty not to kill and in this case pursuing either of the actions will lead to the death or injury of people. No action in this scenario abides by the concept of moral duty.

Kant’s Categorical Imperatives

Kant employs the use of categorical imperatives in his moral theories, the second categorical imperative states that, “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law without contradiction.” Mill et al. (52) according to Kant, it is wrong to treat others as a means to an end instead all actions and maxims should be ends in themselves. With this regard, the train’s conductor should be autonomous in his actions and justify his actions not the outcomes. The common universal law is that killing is wrong and hence avoiding to kill 5 people and killing one person in the process does not make the action right.

Kant’s Perspective on Autonomous Will

In the categorical imperatives, Kant concludes that, “Therefore, every rational being must so act as if he were, through his maxim, always a legislating member in the universal kingdom of ends.” Kant concludes that an autonomous will is not subject to comparison and alignment to the end results but rather stands on its own. It is, therefore, logic to only act in relation to the universality of the actions because each individual action is what emanates to the norms and general maxims that define ethics and moral duty. Mill et al. (58) states that Kant means that every individual action is a means to its own end and hence should not rely on another set of rules to assign it legitimacy. From Kant’s explanation, therefore, if every person in the world were to take lives, it follows that the world would remain empty and hence neither of the two actions by the conductor is justified.

Personal Perspective

Personally, I embrace John Stuart’s concept of utility which states that actions are right when they promote happiness and wrong when they result in pain. John Stuart assigns categories of utilities and states that those utilities that result in more happiness are higher utilities and their reverse is base utilities. John Stuart’s theory of utility embraces the above situation and attaches additional meaning to the action of choosing to run over one man as opposed to 5. Kant’s assertions, on the other hand, don’t give provisional allowances to handle the situation and his main claims are to act not only in accordance with a set of laws but in accordance with the universal laws. Deciding to change track and run over one man is the most logical and rational action to take so as to minimize pain and anguish and maximize it by saving 5 people as opposed to one.

Works cited

Lippert-Rasmussen, Kasper. Deontology, Responsibility, and Equality. Copenhagen: Institut for Medier, Erkendelse og Formidling, Afdeling for Filosofi, Pædagogik og Retorik, University of Copenhagen, 2005.

Liu, Brittany S. What Moral Dilemma? the Use of Deontology and Consequentialism to Justify Moral Intuitions. Irvine, Calif: University of California, Irvine, 2010.

Schultz, Bart, and Georgios Varouxakis. Utilitarianism and Empire. Lanham, Md. [u.a.: Lexington Books, 2005.

Mill, John S, Jeremy Bentham, John Austin, Mary Warnock, and John S. Mill. Utilitarianism: And, on Liberty : Including Mill’s Essay on Bentham’ and Selections from the Writings of Jeremy Bentham and John Austin. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub, 2003.