Kant and Bentham in politics and beyond
Two distinct modes of moral decision making are neither limited to ethics, nor as distinct as they seem
A runaway trolley comes hurtling down a hill, and is set to kill five workers on the track. However, you are standing next to a switch that could divert the trolley to a siding, where it will kill just one lone worker. Will you pull the lever, or do nothing? You may have heard of this classic thought experiment, formulated more than fifty years ago by British philosopher Philippa Foot, and no less controversial today than it was then. It illustrates two distinct modes of ethical decision making. Doing nothing represents being guided by deontology or moral rules (associated with the philosophy of Immanuel Kant). “Thou shalt not kill” prevents you from actively causing the death of the lone worker. Intervening corresponds with utilitarianism (associated with the philosophy of Jeremy Bentham), the aspiration to do the most good for the most people (saving five people is better than saving just one). But might we find these two approaches also in decisions that are not moral dilemmas?
Tension between political preferences
British politics of the day offers a couple of examples. One of the government’s current challenges is the Northern…
