Final answer:
The Harm Principle, which calls to limit actions only if they harm others, complicates decision-making in trolley-like dilemmas. Balancing the immediate harm caused by pulling the lever against the overarching societal implications poses an ethical challenge, involving a struggle between minimal harm and potential long-term consequences.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's question relates to the Harm Principle and its application in trolley-like moral dilemmas, where causing harm to a few might save a larger number of lives. The Harm Principle, proposed by John Stuart Mill, suggests that actions should only be limited if they cause harm to others. In a trolley problem situation, the principle must be weighed against the potential outcomes of actions — either allowing the trolley to kill five individuals or actively intervening to redirect its path, sacrificing one individual to save the others.
When applying utilitarian principles, one might feel compelled to pull the lever to minimize overall harm, acting under the belief that saving more lives outweighs the action of causing harm to the one. However, this decision is controversial as it involves actively causing harm, even if for a greater good. The long-term consequences of such actions and the precedent they set for future behavior must also be taken into account, as actions that cause immediate good might erode trust or undermine societal structures if widely adopted.
Thus, those following the Harm Principle might struggle with a trolley problem as they weigh the immediate harm against broader implications for society. It raises essential ethical questions about whether it's acceptable to cause harm to prevent greater harm and how to measure the value of both actions and outcomes.