Reply
Sun 2 Jan, 2011 09:16 am
Context:
Taken together, these two dilemmas create a puzzle for moral philosophers: What makes it morally acceptable to sacrifice one life to save five in the trolley dilemma but not in the footbridge dilemma? Many answers have been proposed. For example, one might suggest, in a Kantian vein, that the difference between these two cases lies in the fact that in the footbridge dilemma one literally uses a fellow human being as a means to some independent end, whereas in the trolley dilemma the unfortunate person just happens to be in the way. This answer, however, runs into trouble with a variant of the trolley dilemma in which the track leading to the one person loops around to connect with the track leading to the five people. Here we will suppose that without a body on the alternate track, the trolley would, if turned that way, make its way to the other track and kill the five people as well. In this variant, as in the footbridge dilemma, you would use someone's body to stop the trolley from killing the five. Most agree, nevertheless, that it is still appropriate to turn the trolley in this case in spite of the fact that here, too, we have a case of "using."
The stock phrase "in a _____ vein" means in the same manner as the person, or thing or idea which fills in the blank. So, in a Kantian vein means in the same manner as Immanuel Kant, an 18th century Prussian philosopher best known for his work The Critique of Pure Reason. He held that metaphysics can be regulated through the use of epistemology and understood by learning the limits and the sources of what we know.
So your author is saying that the dilemmas posed can be resolved by examining how much we know (and can know), and why we know it.