week 1 post 2

     The basis of moral reasoning has two general approaches: categorical reasoning and consequentialist reasoning. Categorical reasoning locates morality in specific duties and rights, whereas consequentialist reasoning locates morality in an act’s consequences. Categorical reasoning is typically correlated with the German philosopher Emmanuel Kant who believed in logic and basic rules and human rights. Consequential reasoning is identified with Jeremy Bentham, who formed the controversial concept of utilitarianism; Utilitarianism is the concept of generating the greatest good for the greatest number. The trolley car question is repeatedly used to approach which moral reasoning people side with. The primary idea is to determine if you will let the runaway trolley car Hit five people or turn the trolley car to a side track and hit 1. The individuals who turn the track generally believe in utilitarianism, whereas the other option is categorical. Another alteration of the question is to throw in the idea that you are on a bridge above the trolley car, and you have the choice to push a large innocent man down in front of the trolley car and save the rest or let the trolley car keep going and let the man live. This is one example of where utilitarianism becomes controversial. Pushing that man presents obvious psychopathic tendencies, but at the same time, it is only human to want to save those other innocent people. This is where the issue lies with each set of reasoning. Just as life is not black and white, neither should reasoning be. The complexity of every situation’s context makes it hard to say which route of moral reasoning is more appropriate. 

   These approaches to moral reasoning are only the beginning of the ubiquitous realm of philosophy and ethics. They are also a wonderful way to begin examining each individual’s psychological depth when it comes to moral decisions. The observation of this one simple case reveals what is at stake in our everyday life and the importance of critical thinking. That being said, several studies suggest “utilitarian” judgments can be associated with anti-social traits such as psychopathy. This fails to understand the mental depth and difference between individuals and the root of their intentions. While psychopaths are inherently more inclined to push someone off the bridge in front of the trolley car, that ignores that the basis of utilitarianism is, people want the greatest good for the greatest number of people, and neglects the fact that the psychopath’s intentions are not rooted in moral reasoning. This same mindset also ignores how people such as Jeremy Bentham, John Stuart Mill, and Peter Singer have paved the way for making morality more inclusive by fighting sexism, racism, and homophobia. This is only the beginning of the vast depth and questioning created by philosophy.