Conversation on Utilitarianism

Jay and I had a conversation on Utilitarianism whilst I was finishing off the essay. Fortunately we had it in digital format so I decided I could easily paste it (slightly edited, we ended up talking about irrelevant things) into my journal.

***

ALEX:

Trolleyology:

The trolley is heading towards 5 people tied to the track. I could switch it so it hits just The Girl. (Or guy, or whatever. It's always a girl in the movies.) What do I do? (We did this a while ago, I've just suddenly had a brainwave on it.)

What I SHOULD do: Switch the train so it hits her. :( 

What I probably WOULD do: Save her.

Yeah, that's the difference. Have fun chewing that one over.

JAY: 

Of course you SHOULD save the five. Stuff the THOU SHALT NOT KILL thing. Doesn't mean you will.

There's not much to think about. In the end, snap decision will decide. And I think I would probably save the girl. Even at that cost. Because I could not destroy her, even at the cost of murdering five others. At a time like that I would see nothing in my life except for the girl. Call me immoral, I'm just being realistic.

P.S. Oh, I would expect someone else to save the five. Like if it was the Prime Minister or the SAS on a rescue mission.

***

I think Jay's got the reality of the situation in a nutshell. Realistically, I think everyone would save the person they cared about under the pressure that they are put under in that situation. Shame, because I think it's very selfish. I consider myself to be very much on the side of Utilitarianism and the criticisms I hear of it only seem to make my views stronger. You should save the five instead of the one, you should shock one cat instead of two.

It just makes sense.