Trolley problem Essays

The trolley problem (originally proposed by Phillipa Foot in 1967), is a thought experiment and moral dilemma in which a person is forced between two haunting options. In this scenario you are a person walking when you stumble upon a railroad; on this railroad, there is a trolley on track to hit and kill 5 people however you can flip a lever to turn this trolley onto another track killing only one person. This experiment is all about the difference between killing and letting die. There are many

fatal sequence to occur. This is the basis for the objection presented in the Trolley Problem to which she attempts to offer a reply. In this paper, I will defend the Trolley Problem against Foot’s reply, arguing that switching the lever on the track is not just diverting a fatal sequence, but also initiating a new fatal sequence, and explain how this discredits Foot’s argument. Prior to discussing the Trolley Problem, Foot develops an argument in favor of a morally relevant distinction between

viewpoint of a problem slightly, even when the final outcome is the same. The greatest example of this challenging of ethical standpoints of a person, with only a small altering of viewpoints, can be seen in the “Trolley Problem” first outlined by philosopher Philippa Foot. In Foot’s original ethical problem a driver of a runaway tram must make a choice, stay on route and kill five workmen ahead of him or steer the tram onto another spur of track killing only one man. When this problem is proposed

In Judith Jarvis Thomson’s “The Trolley Problem” two hypothetical cases are presented to the reader. The track in which trolley is running must stop to avoid running five men down whom are repairing the track. Due to failed breaks the trolley couldn’t stop and loses control. A second spur of track appears and unfortunately on this track has one worker on it and there is no time to warn both the five workmen and the single workman on the alternate track. If the trolley continues it will kill the five

In Thomson’s paper, she tries to provide a solution to the “The Trolley Problem”, where “one will die if the agent acts, but five will live who would otherwise die”(Thomson, pg.2). The two scenarios that are central to “The Trolley Problem” are the Trolley and Transplant scenarios. The first scenario has a trolley driver in a runaway trolley who they can either choose to crash into five workers or pull the switch and turn the trolley to crash into one instead (Thomson, pg.2). The second scenario is

along the trolley tracks that crisscross his town. As he walks, he hears a trolley behind him so he steps away from the tracks, but as the trolley gets closer, he hears sounds of panic- five people are shouting for help. The brakes of the trolley are not functioning and it is gathering speed. Between this man and the track, there is a fat man not far from the man. This man is fat enough to stop the runaway trolley. By pushing the fat man onto the tracks and stopping the runaway trolley; the fat man

can be pulled to deviate a trolley onto a different track, then a runaway trolley begins heading down this track. If the trolley is to stay on the same track it will hit and kill five workers, however if the bystander pulls the lever so that the trolley now heads down a different track, it will be on a track where one person is working. According to the doing and allowing principle, the bystander for this scenario would be expected to not pull the lever, allowing the trolley to hit the five, as by pulling

it’s important to study them for a host of reasons. First and foremost, it allows us to analyze our behaviors and determine what criteria is valuable in our decision making processes. Studying ethics gives us different outlooks and perspectives on problems we may not consider when looking at it from our individually engrained default approach. It also allows us to look for shifts and changes in mindsets, attitudes, and values, so we can see how we’re progressing as a society. We’re also given the opportunity

Trolley problem, initiated by Philippa Foot, is a situation in which there is a runaway trolley and the only way to save five people on the tracks is to sacrifice one person (Kvalnes, 2015). There are many versions of the trolley problem with regard to how the one should be sacrificed, make trade-offs in order for five persons to be saved. In this paper, there are two trolley case used to compare with the autonomous car case. The first case, called the switch case, come from Philippa Foot (1967)

The scenario is; a man decides to take a walk along trolley tracks that crisscross his town. As he walks, he hears a trolley behind him so he steps away from the tracks, but as the trolley gets closer, he hears sounds of panic- five people are shouting for help. The brakes of the trolley are not functioning and it is gathering speed. Between this man and the track, there is a fat man within arm’s reach; he is large enough to stop the runaway trolley. This man can save the five passengers by pushing

goal in this paper is to show that Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. I begin with a formulation of Swinburne’s thoughts about the similarity and difference between moral evil and natural evil. I then formulate the connection between evil and free will. Next, I consider the potentiality objection to this argument, and Swinburne’s response to this objection. Finally, I argue Swinburne’s solution to the Problem of Evil is persuasive. First, I begin with Swinburne’s views on

A few years ago, one of my family members got into a car accident by not paying attention because a truck hit him, and he had no idea. He went right through his windshield and couldn’t be saved. Many people get killed from car accidents all the time and that should not be happening. Car accidents can happen to anyone and cannot be planned. Driverless cars will be an appropriate fit to our future because driverless cars are much safer than regular cars, they are easier to use, and they can help save

under study. In the first dilemma, a runaway trolley is headed for five people. If nothing is done these five people will be killed. In this dilemma there is only one way to save these five people from death. That way is by hitting a switch that will force the trolley onto an another set of tracks. Doing so will save the five people, but it will kill one person. In the second dilemma, you are on a footbridge. This footbridge is between the approaching trolley and the five people. In this dilemma, there

the general public with a high schooler at its controls? Many people do not see this, but your car sitting in your driveway could be that two-ton monster. With the rise of technology, and computers, cars today are safer than ever before. The only problem with cars tends to be their drivers. With a person behind the wheel, the car is only as safe as the person is alert. Despite the fears many have on automation, self-driving cars are much safer than having any person behind the wheel. First and foremost

correct if the outcome of that action is most favorable to the majority of people. 1. In the Trolley Problem a person has to choose between two outcomes. You can either let the train continue down the path and kill five people who have all been tied down to the track, or you can flip the switch that you have control over and divert the train to

Philippa Foot introduces the Trolley Problem in The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect. She uses it to illustrate some terms of some use to her, such as ‘double effect’, and ‘positive-’ and ‘negative duties’. As I understand it, ‘double effect’ is an originally-Catholic term that has to do with the fact that one always intends both the ends of an action and the means to the ends: both effects are taken into consideration. However, an undesirable effect of the means to an end

In the trolley problem it is apparent, especially using the utilitarianism theory that it is morally right to save the five people on the tracks and kill one person, whether it is the fat person or the man on the track. If I were in the person responsible for saving the five other people I would most likely just change the tracks because if I pushed the fat man off the bridge to stop the train I would be killing a man, who was innocent, with no connection to the train workers. The man on the tracks

In this article, Patrick Lin addresses a problem that has, in recent years, come to the the forefront of ethical discussion: The Trolley Problem, and all the stipulations that come with it. The problem itself has existed in many forms throughout the years in the study of ethics, but has recently become much more relevant with the impending widespread adoption of self driving vehicles. Lin’s topic of adjustable ethics settings in these vehicles highlight the absurdity of attempting to find a “correct”

in “The Flying Machine” by Ray Bradbury, the Emperor chose to kill the flier because he feared that this would fall into the hands of evil. This often leads to the question would you save one to kill five, often called the “Trolley Problem.” This scenario is caused when a Trolley has gone haywire and is going out of control when you have the opportunity to save one killing five or save five killing one. Philippa Foot created this moral depiction to show how much life can be worth. In “The Flying Machine

In this assignment I would like to explore the Trolley Problem, more specifically the variant which is called Bystander at the Switch. First I would propose my opinion on what should be done and why. Then I would propose a counter-argument which may be invoked in response to my reasoning, of which I would attempt to resolve. Bystander at the Switch is as follows: “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