Moral justification is indeed not a unusual in the history of human development. In philosophical thought, certainly the moral reasoning behind a choice or action has long been a central point of debate. Now it is still ongoing both at the practical level and in public discourse. In the legal field, for example, we know positiveism or positive law versus legal pluralism. In public policy we are familiar with the slogan prioritizing public interests over personal interests.
Then how can we claim that a choice or action is morally good or bad. How also if a decision brings goodness to some people, but at the same time suffering for others. Train analogy is commonly used as a tool in discourse, especially in the fields of law and public policy. Say you are a railroad businessman who is driving super fast, 300 km per hour. Tragic, with brakes that don’t work, you only have two choices, between you keep aiming the steering wheel on the left lane or turning right. In the left lane, there are 5 people, while on the right is only one person. They are not realizing that the death is approaching as a consequence of the decision.
I use this analogy just as an introduction to a series on moral writing that follows. The issue of which is right or wrong is not necessarily discussed. Moreover, the classic debate will lead to various arguments. It is impossible to expect an absolute answer without a match. So, it’s better to focus on basic understanding of the root of thinking about the Logic of Utilitarianism.