Would You Kill The Fat Man Analysis

Introduction

In, Would You Kill the Fat Man?, author David Edmonds introduces readers to trolleyology. Trolleyology uses examples, such as the run away trolley or fat man on a bridge, to ask readers what they would do if two groups of people were at risk but you could only save one. Trolleyology derived from what is known as Churchill’s dilemma. In 1994, when the Nazi’s began shooting flying bombs into London, their aim was not as accurate as anticipated. The Nazi’s had recruited two allies to work as double agents, who misinformed them that their bombs had hit their targets. When politicians in London learned of this, they were left to play God. Ultimately, Winston Churchill decided that the double agents should continue to inform the Nazi’s they had executed their target. Although poorer communities would suffer, politicians estimated they could save as many as 10,000 lives by redirecting the bombs, (Edmonds, 6). Throughout his novel, Edmonds presents readers with similar situations and asks them what they would do and explains how the majority of people reach their decision. This article intends to summarize and evaluate Edmond’s work. Moreover, this article answers his question: would you kill

Deontology states there are certain things we should never do, such as torturing another man. Edmonds argues that DDE can only be uses when two situations will have similar endings. The author introduces the deontology equivalent: the difference between doing and allowing, and acting and omitting. Edmond concludes that there is no moral difference in killing someone and allowing them do die by doing nothing. Thus the Doctrine of Triple Effect (DTE) was created. The DTE distinguishes our actions on an “in order” or “because” basis. In the 6 behind 1 case, the ones death can be justified because we change the switch in order to hit the one, not because we want to hit the