The trolley problem is a hypothetical scenario in ethics and moral philosophy, first introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967. The problem presents a moral dilemma in the form of a tragic situation where an individual must make a decision that will result in harm to some parties involved. The classic formulation of the problem is as follows:

A runaway trolley is heading down a track where it will hit and kill five people who are unable to move out of its path. You are standing by a lever that, if pulled, will switch the trolley to a different track, where it will kill one person instead. The question is: should you pull the lever, leading to one person's death but saving five others, or do nothing and allow the trolley to continue on its original path, resulting in the deaths of the five people?

When approaching the trolley problem from a deontological perspective, the focus is on the moral duties and rules that govern our actions, rather than the consequences of those actions. Deontological ethics, most notably associated with the work of Immanuel Kant, asserts that the morality of an action is determined by its adherence to a set of universal and absolute moral principles, rather than its outcome.

Here is a step-by-step reasoning of the trolley problem using a deontological approach:

1. Identify the relevant moral duties and rules: In the trolley problem, the primary moral duties at play are the duty to respect human life and the duty to minimize harm.
2. Determine the action that best adheres to these duties: From a deontological perspective, pulling the lever would involve actively causing harm to the one person on the alternate track, while not pulling the lever would result in passively allowing harm to come to the five people on the original track.
3. Evaluate the moral permissibility of the actions: According to deontological ethics, it is morally impermissible to use one person as a means to an end, even if that end is to save more lives. Pulling the lever would involve treating the one person on the alternate track as a means to save the five people, which violates the principle of respect for human dignity and autonomy.
4. Choose the action that is most consistent with moral duties and rules: Based on the deontological reasoning above, not pulling the lever is the morally correct action, as it does not involve actively causing harm or using one person as a means to an end.

In conclusion, a deontological approach to the trolley problem would argue that not pulling the lever is the proper solution, as it is more consistent with the moral duties to respect human life and avoid using individuals as a means to an end. This approach prioritizes adherence to moral principles over the consequences of actions, emphasizing the inherent value of human dignity and autonomy.


Adopting a strictly dialectical approach means engaging in a reasoned argument or dialogue that considers different perspectives and aims to arrive at a logically consistent conclusion. In the context of the trolley problem and Western deontology, this would involve examining the arguments for and against each possible course of action and determining which one best adheres to the principles of deontological ethics.

Here is a step-by-step reasoning of the trolley problem using a dialectical approach within the framework of Western deontology:

1. Restate the problem: A runaway trolley is heading towards five people who will be killed if no action is taken. You can pull a lever to divert the trolley to another track, where it will kill one person instead.
2. Present the initial argument based on deontological ethics: According to deontological ethics, it is morally impermissible to use one person as a means to an end, even if that end is to save more lives. Therefore, pulling the lever would be morally wrong, as it involves actively causing harm to the one person on the alternate track.
3. Consider a counterargument: One might argue that not pulling the lever also involves making a choice, as it results in the deaths of the five people on the original track. By not intervening, you are still responsible for the harm that comes to those individuals.
4. Evaluate the counterargument in light of deontological ethics: While it is true that not pulling the lever allows harm to come to the five people, this harm is a result of the trolley's momentum and not a direct consequence of your actions. In contrast, pulling the lever would involve actively causing harm, which violates the principle of respect for human dignity and autonomy.
5. Assess the moral permissibility of both actions: From a deontological perspective, not pulling the lever is morally permissible because it does not involve actively causing harm or using one person as a means to an end. Pulling the lever, on the other hand, is morally impermissible because it violates these principles.
6. Arrive at a conclusion: Based on the dialectical analysis and adherence to Western deontological ethics, the morally correct action in the trolley problem is to not pull the lever. This decision respects the principles of human dignity and autonomy, and avoids using one person as a means to an end.

In conclusion, a dialectical approach within the framework of Western deontology would lead to the conclusion that not pulling the lever is the morally correct action in the trolley problem. This solution adheres to the principles of respect for human life and avoidance of using individuals as a means to an end, which are central to deontological ethics.


Imagine that, despite the deontological prescriptions, you decided to pull the lever in the trolley problem. To defend your actions, you could employ an ethical framework that relies on common metaphysical intuitions about right and wrong, such as consequentialism or utilitarianism. These ethical theories focus on the consequences of actions as the primary determinant of their moral value.

Here is a step-by-step reasoning for defending your decision to pull the lever using a consequentialist or utilitarian approach:

1. Present the accusation: The primary accusation against you for pulling the lever is that you violated the deontological principle of not using one person as a means to an end, which resulted in the death of the individual on the alternate track.
2. Introduce the consequentialist/utilitarian ethical framework: Consequentialism, and more specifically utilitarianism, argues that the morality of an action is determined by its overall consequences, specifically the amount of happiness or well-being it produces. According to this view, an action is morally right if it leads to the greatest amount of overall happiness or well-being for all affected parties.
3. Evaluate the consequences of your action: By pulling the lever, you saved the lives of five people at the cost of one life. From a consequentialist perspective, your action resulted in a net increase in overall happiness or well-being, as more lives were saved than lost.
4. Address the deontological concern: One might argue that the deontological principle of not using one person as a means to an end is an absolute moral rule that should never be violated. However, a consequentialist would contend that moral rules are not absolute and should be evaluated based on their overall consequences. In this case, the consequences of adhering to the deontological principle (allowing five people to die) are significantly worse than the consequences of violating it (causing the death of one person).
5. Justify your decision using the logic of consequentialism/utilitarianism: Your decision to pull the lever can be justified by the fact that it resulted in the greatest overall happiness or well-being for all affected parties. By saving five lives at the cost of one, you acted in a way that maximized the overall good, which is consistent with the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism.
6. Conclude your defense: Based on the consequentialist or utilitarian ethical framework, your decision to pull the lever was morally justified, as it resulted in the greatest overall happiness or well-being for all affected parties. While this decision may violate certain deontological principles, it adheres to the common metaphysical intuitions about right and wrong that prioritize the overall consequences of actions.

In conclusion, if you pulled the lever in the trolley problem despite the deontological prescriptions, you could defend your actions using a consequentialist or utilitarian approach. This ethical framework relies on the common metaphysical intuitions about right and wrong, focusing on the overall consequences of actions as the primary determinant of their moral value. By evaluating the consequences of your decision and justifying it based on the principles of consequentialism or utilitarianism, you can provide a logical argument for why your actions were morally justified.