What would Kant do?

Would Kant pull the lever? Last class, we discussed how Kant would respond to the trolley problem. With five people on one track and only one on the other, this problem will remain a moral dilemma. While we can only debate about how Kant would react, based on his philosophy, I believe it is more likely that Kant would not pull the lever.

Kant establishes that the categorical imperative is the supreme law that one should follow for its own sake. He wants people to act in an intrinsically good way. The first rule of the categorical imperative states that we should only act where we could “will the maxim of the action as an universal law.” By pulling the lever, we have broken this rule. To kill another human could not become a maxim because the nature of humanity would cease to exist if everyone killed someone. Therefore, the act of pulling the lever would result in the death of another would be morally wrong and irrational. Even placed in the position of saving five people over one, the goodness of an action is not determined by the results of the action but again on an action of intrinsic good. This does not mean Kant would not pull the lever. Besides the fact that trolleys had not been created in his lifetime, we do not know how he would react. What we do know is that deontology classifies an action as morally right for its own sake not for the consequences afterwards. To pull the lever would be immoral in the eyes of Kant.  

Another variation of the trolley dilemma is the Fat Man Trolley Problem. It involves saving five people on a train track by pushing a fat man onto the tracks. This idea of using another person as a mean contradicts Kant’s second rule of the categorical imperative. People should always be an end in themselves. Humans should be treated as free and rational beings, and sacrificing one person’s life for others is immoral in Kant’s eyes.

In both cases, we can argue that Kant would be focused on the morality of the choice instead of the consequences.