Trolley Problem/Consistency in Ethics

[Angrboda]

The problem with much consequentialism is that it focuses on the immediate and obvious to the detriment of equally important longer focus issues. There is a divide between virtue ethics and deontological ethics and consequentialist ethics for a reason. Virtue ethics acknowledges that the changes we make to ourselves may be as important and lasting as the changes we make in the world. Would I want to be someone who regularly sacrifices relevant interests of the few to the interests of the many? I don't think a good world lies at the end of that path. Likewise with deontological ethics, we recognize that some impromptu solutions, if ethical in and of themselves, would become onerous if codified into rules for behavior. We might, on some exigent circumstance, choose to sacrifice the life of one in order to save five. But we wouldn't want people doing that at every opportunity, as that would quickly become intolerable. In the trolley situation, one is forced into making a decision one way or another. No rule or enduring changes to self follow from our responding to the exigent circumstance. However if we volunteer to take that life as the organ donor situation suggests, we begin down the path of shaping who we are and what rules we live by in a way that is not ultimately to our benefit.