Week 1-Post 2

     When we are confronted with philosophical dilemmas, our decisions reflect the 2 modes of moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning and categorical moral reasoning. The idea of consequentialist moral reasoning was developed by the 18th century philosopher Jeremy Bentham. Then, Emmanuel Kant was the German philosopher who developed the idea of categorical moral reasoning. Consequentialist moral reasoning locates morality in the consequence of the act, whereas categorical moral reasoning locates morality in certain duties and rights. These modes of moral reasoning can be associated with the trolley exercise. The trolley exercise is a scenario where you are driving a trolley and the brakes are broken, making you unable to stop. Ahead on the railtracks are 5 people, but you could pull a lever and move to a different railtrack with only 1 person on it. This is a decision of whether you would kill the 5 workers, or just the 1. Saving 5 people over 1 seems like the obvious choice to make until the alteration of the scenario is brought up. Now, consider being an onlooker of the runaway trolley and on the bridge you stand on, there is a fat man standing next to you that you can push over the railing to save the 5. With this scenario, the decision immediately becomes more complicated. The people who would push over the man demonstrate consequentialist moral reasoning, while the poeple who would not are demonstrating categorical moral reasoning.

     The way these scenarios are presented force you to deeply think about what your definition of the right thing to do is. Both scenarios ask you the same general question about how many lives you would choose to save. But somewhere between the first scenario and the second, factors in the story change and create uncertainty about what you once believed. This relates back to how quickly someones mind can be changed in the real world, by just another point of view or argument. Because, once something we believe is challenged, questions or doubts may rise in our mind prior to their argument. Which leads to further analyzing the situation and finding justification for your claim. With these philosophical scenarios, we go back and forth between ideas, but it is hard to make a solid statement about which decision is the ultimate right thing to do. Therefore these questions have gone unanswered by philosophers for years.