Moral Dilemmas of the Trolley Case Introduction This essay will explain what the Principle of Utility and the Formula of Humanity. This essay will outline three trolley cases (the Switch Case, the Fat Man Case and the Loop Case) and how the Principle of Utility and the Formula of Humanity apply in determining what is the moral thing to do when faced with any of these three scenario. This essay will also explain the action that I would take if faced with these cases. Although these principles are useful when determining whether it would be morally correct to intervene in a situation, these principles may still conflict with a person’s views of what actions are morally correct or not. The Principle of Utility The Principle of Utility, or …show more content…
For instance, if a politician is running for a position of public office, the politician would need a majority vote from the voting public. In this case, winning the election is the politicians end. The voters are the means in which the politician needs to obtain the desired end. If the politician is only using the voters as a mere means to the desired end, then they are not living in accordance with the Formula of …show more content…
Involving myself into the scenario makes me just as guilty of murder as those who were responsible for placing Larry Moe and Curly on the tracks. Therefore it would be morally wrong to apply the switch in the Switch Case scenario. In the Fat Man Case, I would choose not to push Curly onto the tracks in order to save Moe and Larry. Pushing Curly only the track is a deliberate act of murder, despite being an effective way of saving more lives and promoting less pain. In this case, Curly is not tied up, so with no intervention, Curly could go about his day without being affected by the deaths of Larry and Moe. In the Switch Case, I would chose to apply the switch that would eventually kill Curly, but save Larry and Moe. This is the most desired choice in this scenario because the greater number of lives will be saved and the nature of the looped track would always result in the deaths of at least one person. So in allowing one person to die and saving two, the best outcome can be achieved. Larry, Moe, and curly are tied to the tracks at the same time but in different locations, so it is a matter of choosing the lesser of two
As Lawyer Farrington said, Lou Dempsey was accused of illegally selling alcohol to the minor, Eric Howe. Mr. Dempsey failed to meet his responsibilities of asking for identification and anticipating violence and/or accidents caused from alcohol. The amount of alcohol that was given to Mr. Howe, allowed each member attending the party to dissipate their sobriety after drinking four standard cups.
The judge must take into account a number of factors while deciding Ernie's sentence for second-degree murder in order to guarantee a just and equitable punishment. Among these factors are: Severity of the Crime: The judge will weigh the seriousness of the crime, considering the harm done to Bert, the victim, and the effects on Bert's family and
The alternative option of charging Samantha with a DUI according to act utilitarianism would cause a significant adverse effect. Charging Samantha with a DUI would cause Judge Robertson to turn against the entire police force and would likely result in fellow police officers mistreating Officer Jankowski. Officer Jankowski though would feel good about his choice of charging Samantha because it is the law and his duty. In addition this choice kept Samantha safe, and possibly other drivers safe. In this scenario Officer Jankowski causes the most harm to the audience.
Should someone be convicted of murder even if they did it to protect themselves and their friends or should they remain guilty? In the fictional novel The Outsiders written by S.E. Hinton there are two main rival gangs, The Socs and The Greasers. One night Johnny Cade and Ponyboy Curtis were at a park Far East and the socs came and they fought. While they were fighting Johnny took a 6 inch switchblade and stabbed Bob in the back. This resulted o in the death of Bob.
A nearby bystander can divert the trolley onto a different track with only one person on it. To fulfil his positive duties towards the five to prevent them from dying, he must violate his negative duty not to bring harm to the one. This confronts Foot’s argument by highlighting the permissibility to override one’s negative duty for the positive duties of the five others—suggesting no moral distinction exists between killing and letting die. Foot replies to this by claiming this is a situation of diverting a fatal sequence instead of initiating the fatal
If they didn’t care about your safety, they would not have made these rules to keep you safe and alive. Next, you always need to yield to a train. Never cross the tracks when the crossing guards are down. Do not go around the crossing guards, they are to make you safer while crossing the tracks..
Survival doesn’t always come easy, most of the time you will have to make decisions that will make others judge you, whether you like it or not. For example, if someone left their friend to save themselves, should these people be held accountable for their actions? People shouldn’t be held accountable for those actions because when it comes to life or death that’s so much pressure to that person so of course they’re going to make mistakes and everyone makes mistakes we just have to learn from them. However, people will argue that if they put themselves in that situation they should be held accountable for their action In a story titled The Seventh Man, The story is about a boy and his friend who go to the beach after a storm and they end up in a life or death situation. When they were on the beach out of nowhere a huge wave starts to come towards them, which can kill them both, the Seventh man makes a decision “i told myself to to run over to K….
They pulled a switch blade on him. They cut his hair and even his neck. This
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
He uses examples of cases in which people committed crimes involuntarily. Eagleman also cites examples of mental diseases in which the victims have no control over their impulses or actions. In other words, there are people who simply cannot stop themselves from making horrible or regrettable decisions. Therefore, this essay challenges the assumption that people have the power to choose how they live their lives and to make the right decisions at all times. Eagleman addresses the readers directly in order to be able to demonstrate that he understands that his readers will find his ideas radical.
It is like a process of elimination. First, each person draws a slip. If a person pulls a slip of paper with a black dot on it, that family has to each pull a slip. The person that pulls a slip with a black dot on it (from the family) has to be stoned to death. So in the end, one person must die.
Philippa Foot presented a series of moral dilemmas when she discussed abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. One famous problem of her was the trolley dilemma: “..he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track onto another; five men are working on one track and one on the other; anyone the tack he enters is bound to be killed.” (Foot, 1967, p. 2) What should the driver do? Despite what he does, he will harm someone!1
To deal with these dilemmas, utilitarianism and duty ethics theories should be taken into account. For a utilitarian decision maker, who will attempt to maximize the sum of utility for all concerned (Kvalnes, 2015), the third person should pull the switch or push the fat man to reduce the killings from five persons to one person; that is, keeping the number of people died to a minimum. In contrast, in duty ethics perspectives, there are moral considerations more important than
“A bystander happens to be standing by the track, next to a switch that can be used to turn the tram off the straight track, on which five [...people] are working, onto a spur of track to the right on which only one [...person] is working. The bystander therefore has only two options: [...] (i) do nothing, letting five die, or (ii) throw the switch to the right, killing one” (Thomson 2008, p. 361). I, along with a majority of people would agree, without hesitation, that in this case it is okay to pull the lever and take one life instead of five, some would even say that we should pull the lever, implying that we are morally obligated to do so. Justification for this decision is as follows: “When you have the means to save life, it’s better to save more”, which is a common consequentialist reasoning in this situation.
Suppose a conductor is driving his train and the breaks are defect. The rails lead directly into a cluster of five people who would all die if the train will go this direction. However, the conductor can change onto another track where only one person is standing hence only one person would die. How should the conductor react (Hare, 1964)? Is it possible to condense the problem to a rather simple maximization problem in example that the action is taken, which would kill the least people?