We discussed the Trolley Problem today in class, considering several variables that would complicate anyone's utilitarian decision. One large difficulty we saw with Mill's utilitarianism is that, unlike Kant's theory, there is not a rule that can make deciding whether any action in a given situation is moral or not a clear decision. Under Kant, I would argue that the Trolley Problem is not a situation that deals with justice. In the first place, no action one may take in that circumstance aligns with Kant's Universal Law of Justice--that the free use of your will is compatible with the freedom of everyone. Whether you pull the lever or not, your actions are incompatible with the freedom of whoever dies as a result. Do you agree with this? Or would this simply be a situation in which one's only options are unjust actions?
I think we can all agree that it is, whether justice is involved or not, a morality problem. Considering this, I wonder what you think Kant would do if faced with the Trolley Problem? I think that Kant would not pull the lever (or push the fat man) in order to save the lives of 10 other people. Because Kant is not concerned with the ends of any action (just the actions themselves), it would be immoral to force the death of anyone. By not acting, it is true that 10 people will die, but because Kant was not responsible for the action that caused their deaths, he is acting morally (or at least not immorally). Who really knows what Kant would do, but in this scenario I'm only concerned with what Kant would view as the morally right action. What do you think?
So, Batman! In The Dark Knight, the Joker kidnaps Harvey Dent, the District Attorney and white knight of Gotham, and Rachel, Batman's crush and Harvey Dent's girlfriend. He puts them in two different warehouses full of explosives set to explode on a timer. The idea is that Batman is told where they both are, but because the warehouses are far apart and he cannot get to them both before they explode, he must choose who he is going to save. This seems to me to be a good example of a problem we faced with utilitarianism--weighing the value of a human life to yourself, versus the value of a human life to the world. I'm not sure this scene is a perfect example, though, as the Joker lies to Batman about which hostage is in which warehouse. Batman intends to save Rachel, but he walks in to find Harvey Dent instead. It seems he intended to choose his love interest over the believed savior of Gotham.
Have a look:
Have a look:
My final consideration is, what do you think Kant would do in this scenario? Would it matter who is saved, so long as you attempt to save one of them?
Something interesting I would like to add on the topic of Batman is a quote the joker says to Detective Stephens:
ReplyDelete"Do you want to know why I use a knife? Guns are too quick. You can't savor all the... little emotions. In... you see, in their last moments, people show you who they really are. So in a way, I know your friends better than you ever did. Would you like to know which of them were cowards? "
I was trying to remember this quote and class and couldn't off the top of my head. Batman is definitely full of many philosophical and ethical dilemmas. It is interesting to examine the situation of Batman saving Harvey over Rachel, especially since he intended to save Rachel. Kant might argue that it doesn't matter who you save, as long as they were saved. But it obviously does make a difference. If rachel had been saved and Harvey Dent had died, he would not have become the new villain and Batman would have still had his love interest Rachel.