A question of effectiveness

I have found it very interesting to see how each new philosopher we encounter initially broaches the topic of justice. Of course there have been Plato’s rhetorical games with Thrasymachus, Aristotle’s supreme analogy, Hume’s thoughts on fellowship, and then well things like the musings of Kant. And as we have discussed before, while each has its own merits, some of these approaches seem to be more easily applied to daily life than others.

Especially evident in Mill’s encapsulation of justice, there is a certain intrinsic practicality that comes with utilitarianism because Mill seeks to reconcile the differences that arise between ‘objective reality’ and the subjective feelings which are inspired by it. And within this framework, our sense of justice is spoken of as a natural or instinctive phenomenon, driven by nature itself.

I believe this is an important distinction to make because it implies that divorcing our feelings from our sense of justice can never be satisfactorily achieved because one begets the other. Taking this idea into account when addressing something like the permutations of the trolley problem, adds yet another level of complexity to our seemingly simple moral dilemma. From our classroom, far removed from any tracks, bridges, or devices by which we are supposed to carry out this catch 22 scenario our concrete detachment gives us the ability to ponder each outcome, using logic, emotions, humor, or any other such devices we might choose.

However, if you could place yourself in the dead of a cold night, along a set of dark deserted railroad tracks in the presence of the trolley terrorists, I wonder what exactly would truly drive each of us to perform one action over the other. In other words, with time being of mortal consequence and with your hand clutching the cold metal lever of destiny, what would be running through your mind? Mill would of course argue that the best outcome would be that which saved the five individuals bound to the tracks, regardless of their felonious or non-felonious character. However, even if we choose this as the greatest good, the perception of this reality and the feelings associated with this outcome must be of equal consequence.

This is in fact a question that Mills uses to initially frame his conceptualization of justice when he states, “Is the justice or injustice of an action a thing intrinsically peculiar” or is justice “Only a combination of certain of those qualities presented under peculiar aspect.” This is certainly an interesting question because it would seem that the answer would betray how effective our studious conditioning would be in guaranteeing that the ‘correct’ choice is made when our hand is clutching the lever.