Analysis Of Gazzanig ' Toward A Universal Ethics ' Essay

Utilitarianism is a teological ethical framework that offers a way to analyze the transistor company’s dilemma. Utilitarianism is consequentialist in nature, meaning that the theory only takes in account the consequences of an action to determine if that action is morally right. More specifically, Kay (1997) explains “utilitarian ethics defines morality in terms of the maximization of net expectable utility for all parties affected by a decision or action” (p. X). For example, it would be acceptable to a utilitarian to kill one person if it meant saving two more people. This is in stark contrast with deontological ethics, which prohibits actions that use people as a means to an end.

The final situation is a little bit more complicated because it is much like the previous case where you can save five or save one, except this has a certain twist to it. In this case, someone has a choice to do absolutely nothing and watch an out of control trolley speed down a hill and kill five people tied to the track. The other choice would be for the person to flip a switch to save the five, but they would be killing one other person that is tied to the other side of the track. This bystander situation is much like the first case where the Judge was going to frame an innocent person to save the five. In this case, all six people have the negative right to live and not be harmed. We can assume that they have done nothing wrong and that they are tied to the tracks for no apparent reason. For this reason, it goes back to the duties discussed earlier. Everyone has a negative duty not to harm other people. The

In this reading by Gazzaniga: “Toward a Universal Ethics”, we are presented with The Trolley Dilemma. The dilemma in abstract moral reasoning studies most often presented by researchers is the trolley problem. This is an experiment in ethics and moral justice. A situation built on abstract moral reasoning. The question here is “Are morals something that is innate or are they something we learn?”

The complexity of the Trolley problem is one that can be resolved by unravelling the concept itself and considering the multipe possible analogies, the use of which is very important in the understanding and answering of ethical questions such as the Trolley problem . The trolley problem mainly deals with the law in relation in to morality, how public policy dictates or influences legality. Finding the most ethical solution to the problem is what is required of those who dare undertaking solving this problem

1. The scenarios presented in class was utterly interesting and thought provoking since each scenario made me think differently and make my conclusion. My conclusions for these scenarios mostly remained similar except the third scenario where it relates with settling on decision between saving lives, where one needs to make a choice that can save 5 moderately injured people in compare to one person who is severely injured. In that case, if moderately injured could persist for adequate period, I would treat the severely injured person just as any morally proficient doctor would do but if there is no choice, it is ethical to save maximum probable lives. However, in scenario 1,2, and 4, I would like to handle it differently

The thought experiment’s most common variation proposes that a test subject has the ability to save five people by flipping a switch and having it hit one person instead (Kahane). Another proposal is the “footswitch” variation, which proposes a test subject has the ability to save five people by pushing one otherwise uninvolved person onto the tracks. While deontology is concerned with whether man has obligation to act in the problem, utilitarianism proposes that the subject should always sacrifice the life of one to save as many as possible.

The five individuals in the trolley problem could have been in the wrong path for a reason, that reason is fate. Life treats every person differently, if it was meant for them to be saved, then why would they be placed in such danger? It could be that the one individual on the safe path was put there for a reason, maybe fate decided that he or she had to live, not the other five. Continuing onto my second point, without my presence in the trolley problem, fate would have taken control regardless. In other words, my presence would have no authority to manipulate a situation that was already predetermined to occur.

Place a utilitarian in the scenario with the power to push a button that knocks the onlooker onto track saving the five people or standing by and doing nothing. The utilitarian would physically push the onlooker themselves to procure the safety of the group rather than that of the individual. Utilitarians believe in preservation, and preservation comes from numbers which is why they choose the lives of many rather than the few. Again, commendable they want to save as many people as possible, but can they really claim heroism if they literally through another person under the

As I walk out from the train on to the rocky pavement, I am astonished by the amount of people pushing in one direction. As I look around I see huge departure boards with station names, train numbers, and departure times. I see people carrying bags, dragging rolling bags, and unconscious of their surroundings. It’s amazing how they manage to not run into one another. As soon as I make my way through the crowded mob of people to the narrow escalator, I go up the stairs to the ground

The trolley problem is a hypothetical experiment in philosophy that involves an emergency rescue where an uncontrolled trolley travels down a track towards a group of five workers. A bystander happens to be standing next to a switch that can choose to flip the switch and divert the trolley and save the five, however, diverting the track towards a line which has only one worker on it. This problem poses a question on the rights of people sacrificing themselves or others for a better outcome. In this essay, I agree that it is permissible for the bystander to intervene and divert the track in order to save the five workers, resulting in the death of one. From an entirely utilitarian viewpoint, it is important to provide the greatest amount of happiness for the greatest amount of people (Smart 1973). However, it is important not to infringe upon the rights of others directly.

This continues to The Fat Man and The Trolley Car. They are in the same scenario with five people dying, except they are standing on a bridge above the track next to a fat man, aware that the train is coming. Right before the train comes, they realize that they are not heavy enough to stop the cart. 73.12% says that they would not push the fat man to save the trolley cart, are choosing to let someone die instead of killing. (270)

Sometimes we have to make a choice that is not the best for everyone but it will be the best for the majority of the people. In the trolley problem, I would not push the man of the bridge. I would yell to the one man who is standing by himself on the train track to warn him about the incoming train then I would switch the track on the very last minute to give the man enough time to register the information in his brain and to move from the track. Pushing the man of the bridge is essentially killing him because it will not be his choice to fall off the bridge and stop the train. People will argue and say that it is not the other’s man choice to die as well. Well everyone who is working on the railroad track should know the risks that they take

On the other hand, a philosopher named John Stuart Mill who believed that any ethical dilemma should be solved by how many people are affected by it. Mill talk about Utilitarianism and Utilitarianism is the belief that the majority of the people should benefit from your decision. He would say that you should not hold people higher than other people in the ethical dilemma that you are facing in your life. He uses rational thought in making these decision to make as many people happy. An example of Utilitarianism in action is the Trolley Experiment. The Trolley Experiment is when you have a trolley coming down the track, and you are standing beside a lever that changes the direction of the cart. On the current rout of the cart, it will hit five

The main ethical and moral issue comes with the pull of the switch. As Golden rule applies, a view is that one doesn’t want to be hit by the trolley because one wants to live. Therefore, one want the person with the lever to save his or her life. One argument for pulling the lever is when one was tied up with other four people, and one wanted the person to pull the switch to save five of them. Therefore the Golden rule makes one to pull the lever.

ethics it is. Two perspectives, Ethics of justice (Kohlberg’s theory) and Ethics of care (Gilligan’s theory) will be discussed and contrasted. The central concepts of the development of morality and ethics play an important role in figuring out how morality is developed from early childhood. On the one hand Kohlberg claimed that justice and rights were the central concepts for moral reasoning. He believed that this type of ethics focuses on universal laws and principles where ethical or moral decisions are executed in an objective way that assures fair and equal treatment of others. As such the understanding of moral reasoning becomes overly abstract and systematic. The use of justice as a central moral concept would mean that when used in