"The Trolley Problem compels individuals to confront the fundamental moral dilemma of whether it is justifiable to sacrifice one life to save many others" (Shafer-Landau). The central ethical question posed by the Trolley Problem revolves around the morality of actively choosing to divert the trolley, thereby sacrificing one life to save five. Utilitarianism, a consequentialist ethical theory, asserts that the moral rightness of an action is determined by its consequences, specifically its ability to maximize overall happiness or utility. From a utilitarian perspective, the solution to the Trolley Problem appears straightforward: divert the trolley onto the track with only one individual, thereby minimizing overall harm and maximizing utility. By sacrificing the life of one individual to save the lives of five others, the action aligns with the foundational tenets of utilitarianism by producing the greatest good for the greatest
Other most recent theories have examined situations and conditions in which a potential offender could commit a crime and they have concluded that offenders engaged in such calculated rational choice because they see the opportunity to commit a crime. The rational choice model also argued that people have the free will, which is the ability to choose whether or not they want to commit a crime while rational choice is the way in which information necessary to make decision to engage in a criminal act. There are other factors such as pain, pleasure, and punishment. In respects to pain and pleasure, rational choice theorist argued that people seek to maximize pleasure and minimize pain.
Utilitarianism is a subdivision of the Consequentialism theories which proposes that the correct moral conduct is determined by weighing its consequence. Utilitarianism has two general divisions; Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism points out that an act is right if it is likely to produce the most good for the most people. And this is the situation in this case, where maximizing the good can be obtained by minimizing the risk of harm for people’s lives that is likely to happen as a result of the illegal actions. The illegal actions must stop to ensure that people’s lives are not at risk.
Utilitarianism is a form of consequential theory and has two central branches that I will define and apply to this engineering and environmental disaster. This theory depends only on the consequences of decisions, through consequentialist theories pleasure is seen as the most important outcome. It tests which of the available options would create the most happiness and the least unhappiness. The morally responsible choices are the ones that create the most net pleasure meaning that as long as the positives and pleasures outweigh the negatives and displeasures. One of the key tenants of measuring the positives is to determine the amount of people who will experience pleasure and the depth or intensity of said pleasure.
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique. Smart illustrates the distinction between act-Utilitarianism and rule-Utilitarianism early on in his work. He says that act-Utilitarianism is the idea that the rightness of an action depends on the total goodness of an action’s consequences.
Why War is Good We are Mariah, Jordan, Siri, Chong, and Kevin, and we believe that war is a good thing. We believe this because it has lead to many technological advances, it is good for the economy, and lastly it supports the theory of utilitarianism. Throughout human history we see examples of war being spurred by technology, but we also see technological jumps occurring during or following times of war.
Voluntary euthanasia defined as a person makes a request to be helped to end the life, and the competence of the patient requesting assistance with dying (“Voluntary euthanasia”, 1996). The cases included the person refusing burdensome medical treatment, refusing to eat, simply deciding to end his or her life and asking the medical treatment to be ended or switch off life support machines (“Ethics guide”, 2007). Non-voluntary euthanasia defined as a person who is unable and has not, at the time to express a view on ending the life (“Non-voluntary euthanasia”, 1996). The cases included the person is in a coma; too young, senile, has severe brain damaged, mentally retarded, and mentally disturbed (“Ethics guide”, 2007). According to Biswas and
This essay will be a discussion of the question, ‘what circumstances might lead people to inflict harm on others, even if this conflicts with their own moral values?’. This essay will use several academic studies and views to support the claims made, and will reflect on past experiments in psychological history which indicate when certain circumstances may lead people to inflict harm on others. This discussion topic has been widely scrutinised and analysed by various academic experts throughout the last century, with varying opinions and findings made by different experts. This essay will discuss the varying opinions of academics, and decide whether certain circumstances do indeed lead to people inflicting harm on each other.
Steven Hawking, the British physicist asked “We don't let animals suffer, so why humans?” The controversial issues of euthanasia started from 5th Century BC. The Hippocratic Oath prohibited physicians give a lethal drug to anyone, not even if asked for. However, most ancient Greek or Roman physicians ignored. They supported for voluntary euthanasia as opposed to prolonged pain.
Eugenics is the science of using artificial selection to improve genetic features of the population. It is thought that improvement of the human race can be seen through sterilization of people who exhibit undesirable traits and selective breeding. Often called Social Darwinism, the concept was widely accepted during the time of World War I. It quickly became a taboo after World War II when Nazi Germany used it as an excuse for genocide. The thought of improving the human race by manipulating who is allowed to breed can either be appalling or compelling.
Another reason why capital punishment is not justified is that it harms the government’s economy. Capital punishment actually causes the trials to become more expensive. Capital punishment cost have increased over the years. This can be due to several different factors. According to Maurice Chammah there are six main reasons why the cost of capital punishment has increased over the years.
Capital Punishment also known as the death penalty is a controversial topic. A lot of people think that the death penalty is against human rights; however, what right does a criminal have to take a life or to do grotesques crimes? Others say the death penalty say that the consequences of the death penalty are irreversible. But, wasn’t the criminal taking someone else’s life also irreversible? Criminals don’t think to value theirs or the other people’s lives.
Consequentialism is a theory stating morality is dependent on an action’s outcomes; the most noteworthy example of this theory is utilitarianism. Consequentialism is contested as critics find it overdemanding for application on the virtue of its extensiveness in the individual’s life and reliance on unpredictable consequences, and due to the depth of logic override necessary to maximise happiness in some situations. Rebuttals have been made, and in this essay, I will explain the principles of consequentialism and utilitarianism and argue that the refutations are unsuccessful. Consequentialists, as aforementioned, strive to create best overall consequences for the largest amount of people. Moral agents must aim to maximise happiness and minimise pain.
THE EUTHANASIA CONTROVERSY Summary Euthanasia has constantly been a heated debate amongst commentators, such as the likes of legal academics, medical practitioners and legislators for many years. Hence, the task of this essay is to discuss the different faces minted on both sides of the coin – should physicians and/or loved ones have the right to participate in active euthanasia? In order to do so, the essay will need to explore the arguments for and against legalizing euthanasia, specifically active euthanasia and subsequently provide a stand on whether or not it should be an accepted practice.
And finally, some people believes that common sense is wrong. They have three responses to go against the anti-utilitarian arguments; all values have a utilitarian basis, our gut reactions can’t be trusted sometimes, and that we should focus all the
