The Subway Dilemma
By Alicia Grechu
To understand my ethical scenario, imagine you are at a subway station in New York City. You approach the turnstiles that require a fare of $2.90. Aside from paying the fares, there is an alternate way of crossing the turnstiles: the “emergency exit” door. This door is reserved exclusively for genuine emergencies, sounding an alarm if opened improperly. For the sake of this scenario, assume that this door has been opened without sounding the alarm, which is an often occurrence at some stations. The coast is clear to pass through unnoticed. Do you take advantage of the open door and avoid paying the $2.90 fare or should you ignore the door and use the turnstiles to pay the fare?
Legally, the answer is clear. But what about ethically? Personally, I have seen this scenario take place right in front of me, which inspired my deepened research on the morality behind both actions. I will analyze this scenario through the philosophical lens of Immanuel Kant.
Kantian philosophy is based on the moral duty that all individuals are meant to abide by, which is determined by the concept of categorical imperative. In combination with human rationality, universality, and autonomy, categorical imperatives play a key role in determining one’s moral duty. However, this philosophy is broad and difficult to apply to all situations due to its lack of consideration towards external circumstances outside of the dilemma. This begets the fact that Kantian ethics lack flexibility and can conflict with one’s other moral duties. In turn, there are a lot of deep and relevant questions that Kant does not address through his philosophy.
To act in accordance with one's moral duty means to follow the moral law (categorical imperatives) through the use of rational thought. When Kantianism is applied to the subway predicament, it can be argued that it is morally unacceptable to go through the open door. According to Kant, every individual must act in accordance with moral principles. Kant wrote, “. . . we shall set before ourselves the concept of duty, which contains that of a good will though under certain subjective limitations and hindrances, which, however, far from concealing it and making it unrecognizable, rather bring it out by contrast and make it shine forth all the more brightly” (Kant 1785, 5). It is evident that Kant believed that an individual's moral actions should be backed by a sense of “good will” that overpowers their personal self-interest.
In the case of the subway dilemma—the decision of a person confronted with the choice of whether they wish to act selfishly and skip the fare or act in accordance with their moral duty and pay the fare—is a reflection of their moral will. This “good will” is considered especially strong if an individual makes a difficult choice without self-interest. If this person considers their own ego or desire while making their decision, this can be considered immoral and the person, thus, lacks a strong good will. Perhaps this person wishes to skip the fare to save money because they are struggling financially; maybe they are in a rush and wish to save time. Such circumstances can make a simple decision more complex. However, this demonstrates that this person would be prioritizing their own self-interest over their inherent moral duty, which Kant finds unacceptable. The individual’s good will should be more powerful than their desire to skip the fare out of selfishness.
As previously mentioned, it is important to consider the Kantian concept of categorical imperatives when making an ethical decision as they are directly connected to one’s moral duty. These imperatives provide the framework for determining whether or not an action is morally acceptable. In Kantian philosophy, categorical imperatives are based on moral commands that apply unconditionally and universally to all human beings, with ties to rationality. Said imperatives exclude any personal desires or extenuating circumstances as Kant deemed them irrelevant.
The first formulation of the categorical imperative is based on whether the maxim, or principle behind the action, can be considered a universal law. In the subway scenario, if everyone were to use the open door and skip the fare, chaos, crowding, and major financial losses for the subway system would be detrimental. If taking advantage of the open door were a universal law, the negative fiscal impact on the Metropolitan Transportation Authority would lead to the collapse of the New York City subway system since no one would pay the fare. This would also harm the millions of citizens who rely on the subway system as their main mode of transportation. Therefore, based on these consequences, the act of skipping the fare lacks universality and this maxim cannot be considered a universal law.
The second formulation of the categorical imperative emphasizes the value of all human beings being treated as ends in themselves rather than a means to an end. Kant considers this as respect to human autonomy, and the fact that all individuals have inherent worth. In his writings, Kant states, “A human being, however, is not a thing and hence not something that can be used merely as a means, but must in all his actions always be regarded as an end in itself” (Kant 1785, 14–15). Kant expresses an opposition to treating individuals as pure mechanisms for the benefit of one’s self, tying back to the selfishness mentioned earlier when discussing good will. If an individual were to use the open door and avoid the fare, they are essentially treating the people of the subway system who do respect the fare as a means to their own end (saving $2.90). Thus, based on these formulations of categorical imperatives, skipping the subway fare cannot be considered to be in line with one’s moral duty. However, this is just brushing the surface.
Kant believed that circumstances were irrelevant when determining what is and is not moral, but this is not quite right. To build off of what I mentioned in the beginning, Kantian philosophy is considered limited due to its exclusion of context when making ethical decisions. Kant’s concept of categorical imperatives is far too general to be adequately applied universally to all ethical dilemmas. As moral human beings, we must be responsive to circumstances during our ethical decision-making when determining what is more important.
To further prove this, I propose a new ethical dilemma built off of the subway scenario that I explained earlier. Say that there is a person who is having a life-threatening medical emergency on the other side of the turnstiles. A doctor, on his way to work, spots the stranger across the turnstile and rushes to their immediate assistance. It is part of the doctor’s moral duty to save lives. They know that they can do something to help the person who is suffering and are willing to skip the subway fare in order to respond to the emergency as quickly as possible. So, they ditch the idea of paying for the fare and focus their attention on saving the person’s life. They have weighed the morality of both actions and deemed that saving a person’s life is more important than paying the subway fare.
What does this say about Kantian ethics? Based on a surface-level interpretation of the situation through Kant’s lens, the conclusion would be that the doctor is doing something immoral since they are breaking the law by skipping the fare. However, if we deeply consider the circumstances of this situation, we can understand that the doctor is in fact acting morally out of good will.
If the doctor were to take their time to pay the fare and arrive too late to save the passenger, we as a society would judge them and look down on them for not prioritizing a human being’s life. The doctor themself would also feel blamed for this person’s death because they’re aware that they could have prevented it. On the other hand, if the doctor were to rush to the attention of the dying person and save their life, we as a society would praise the doctor for their good deed and they would feel accomplished for using their expertise to save a life—this is because of the basic good will, responsibility, and sensitivity that all humans hold.
The concept behind the human will states that we all have the ability to make careful decisions based on what is going on around us, rather than act like single-response robots. While paying the fare may be the right thing to do on any day at the subway, it is evident that this isn’t always the appropriate response. In the doctor’s case, they must rationally choose to either prioritize the law and pay the fare or save the life.
This decision also ties into human responsibility, which is the concept that all individuals are responsible for their own thoughts and actions, mainly tied to justice, respect (for life), solidarity, and non-violence. The doctor has control over their own thoughts and actions and should act in a way that is responsive to the situation around them. Their responsibility, as a human being, to respect all human life is what drives them to skip the fare.
Human-emotional sensitivity revolves around the fact that all humans are quick to empathize and sympathize with each other. This causes us to want to behave in an appropriate manner in order to not bother those around us, as well as to be helpful and caring towards other people. All people, more or less, experience this sense of human sensitivity. The doctor must take into account this human will, responsibility, and sensitivity to act in a way that is morally acceptable for the sake of both themself and the people around them.
These factors show that, in making an ethical decision, weighing options based on circumstances is most crucial. Even though the doctor has their Kantian moral duty that they abide by—in this case, always paying the subway fare—it conflicts with their other moral duty, which is to prioritize medical emergencies to save human life. The principle behind their act to skip the fare is that they did it for the greater good of our society, not for self-serving reasons. While they are still committing a crime, it is a justifiable crime. The doctor is acting out of a complete lack of self-interest when it comes to saving the person’s life.
While the case with the doctor is a fair example, who is responsible for determining what is more important? Well, there is no concrete answer to this question. But it does prompt two valid solutions.
The first answer is that we, as a society, decide together. For example, we as a community must agree that human life is the most important thing based on our human will, responsibility, and sensitivity. Then, we all would conclude that our choices, especially in the case of the doctor, are driven by a sense of moral duty towards the greater good of others within the community. This collective decision-making process would shape our social values and establish a clear foundation for ethical conduct and social harmony.
The second answer is that we, as individuals, must decide. For example, the doctor themself must—based on their own classification of their human will, responsibility, and sensitivity—ponder their own actions. Maybe they believe that all human life holds significance and that they must do their utmost best to save it at whatever cost. Or maybe they are someone who is not as emotional or kindhearted as the average person is and would rather believe that it is not a part of their human responsibility to save this random person’s life. This acknowledges that there is no single, prescriptive answer that addresses what every person should abide by when making ethical decisions.
Regardless of which is better, these formulations cause a rift in Kantian ethics by highlighting the importance of weighing options based on the circumstances of a situation. The consideration of the basic human will, responsibility, and sensitivity adds a depth that Kantian philosophy on its own lacks. In combination with Kantian principles, this altered method of ethical analysis emphasizes the need for us to be responsive to the complexities of real-life situations, which would allow for Kantian ethics to be more realistically applicable.
SPRING 2025
Bibliography
Illustrations were done in collaboration with the New Media Artspace at Baruch College. The New Media Artspace is a teaching exhibition space in the Department of Fine and Performing Arts at Baruch College. Housed in the Newman Library, the New Media Artspace showcases curated experimental media and interdisciplinary artworks by international artists, students, alumni, and faculty. Special thanks to docent Dylan Shalmer for creating artwork for this piece.
Visit the New Media Artspace at http://www.newmediartspace.info/