Ethics And Morality : The Trolley Problem

Ethical dilemmas occur when there is a disagreement about a situation and all parties involved question how they should behave based on their individual ethical morals. (Newman & Pollnitz, 2005). The dilemma that I will be addressing in this essay involves Michael, recently employed male educator working in the nursery, and parents of a baby enrolled at the centre. The parents have raised concerns about male educators changing their child’s nappy as they have cultural practices that do not allow this practice to take place. This situation is classed as an ethical dilemma as there is a dispute between cultural beliefs and legal requirements within the workplace. There are four parties involved (parents, child, educator and director), all

Utilitarianism is an ethical principle that states that everyone should act in the way that will bring out the most good for the majority. If this were true then most people would make the decision to save five people even if it required murder or one. The Trolley Problem dives right into this core issue by describing a decision making scenario. Utilitarianism is damaged as an ethical theory because it oversimplifies this decision, and other decisions like it, strictly on outcome.

Philosophy consists of two major theories which aim to deny and validate moral rules and principles: deontology and utilitarianism ethics. These two perspectives give philosophy its wide range of concepts and decisions to frame our lives, giving structure to what we believe is right and wrong. More often than not, these concepts bring argument to what has already been set in stone by tough, controversial philosophers such as Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham due to the nature of the topics and sensitivity they cause. In this essay, I look to discuss the trolley example in relation to deontology and utilitarianism; what each of these concepts tells us about the best way to behave in the example, and concluding with which concept is right?

As humans, we take morality decisions based on how we were raised. I took the “Trolley Problem” into consideration and figured out what my action would be for the switch. I asked my boyfriend what his choice would be. I was surprised that our answers were different. In the process of configuring why we chose different solutions to the problem I came to the conclusion that our decisions were based upon how we were raised. He grew up in a very family oriented household while I grew up in a split household. These simple differences make up the ultimate decision of whether to save one loved one or saving five

They deem the most morally or ethically correct choice one that results in the greatest good for the greatest number of people, deeming a choice or action incorrect if it does not maximise happiness (The Trolley Dilemma). According to surveys, around 90% of people would choose to pull the lever in the first scenario, however almost the same percentage believe it would be incorrect to push the fat man off the bridge (Bakewell, 2013). So what is the difference? One person is still being thrust into a fatal situation, yet many will say they would struggle to gather the motivation to push someone off the platform, but are unable to provide a logical reason for this choice other than it goes against

As part of an effort to hire younger workers, a multinational organization assures applicants that they will get to visit its offices in other countries and work with the employees there. However, only two out of every nine workers actually get selected for such projects. What moral dilemma best fits this scenario?

Judith Jarvis Thomson presents an ethical dilemma entitled The Trolley Problem in The Monist. The problem describes a situation in which a trolley car is moving quickly and out of control on a train track towards five people who are tied to the tracks; you have the power to pull a lever, change the direction of the trolley car and save those five people – at the expense of the life of one person who is on the track the car was diverted to (Thomson 1397). The choice to be made is not just about whether or not one should pull the lever though. The problem dictates a choice about whether one would kill, in the case of choosing to pull the lever to kill the one person and save the five, or letting die, in which case nothing is done and the five are killed because of the lack of action taken (Thomson 1398). Thomson believes it would be incorrect to turn the trolley and willingly choose to kill one person, rather than allow the five to die, but the philosophies of Immanuel Kant and John Stewart Mill must be analyzed to determine whether they would agree with Thomson, or have a different view from Thomson as well as one another. When considering J.J. Thomson’s Trolley Problem, the philosophies of Kant and Mill must be fully analyzed and expressed to determine the most plausible perspective to be taken by both philosophers on the issue. There are strengths, weaknesses and criticisms of both ethical arguments, and these will be considered as well in the analysis.

The trolley issue features a central pressure between two schools of good idea. The utilitarian point of view manages that most fitting activity is the one that accomplishes the best useful for the best number. In the meantime, the deontological point of view affirms that specific activities – like killing a blameless individual – are quite recently wrong, regardless of the possibility that they have great outcomes. In the two forms of the trolley issue over, utilitarian's say you should give up one to spare five, while deontologists say you ought not.

How should we live? Since the dawn of our species, we have struggled to answer this question. For many, they adopt the lifestyle imposed by their society and heritage. Though there have always been individuals who carve their own path, societal attitudes have shifted toward autonomy over the past century causing many to reflect and answer this question for themselves. This is all well and good, however, this reflection has brought greater attention to moral conundrums that should be resolved prior to committing oneself to a new lifestyle. Ethics as a philosophical discipline attempts to outline and justify a way of life. Moreover, a good ethical theory includes with it methods of evaluating moral dilemmas. This means they must assert a basis for morality, and why we should pursue actions conducive to said

The question of morality proves to be a complex interrogatory. Should you be moral? If so, why? Justifying why one should behave morally is a surprisingly difficult task. In today's world, morality is frequently thought of as belonging to a particular religious point of view, but it is not the case. Everyone adheres to a moral doctrine of some kind. Morality describes the concepts that govern our behavior. If these concepts did not exist, societies would not be able to survive for long. There are numerous definitions that address what morality is and why it’s important, however, all of the contrasting views are essential to describing the overall concept of it.

“Brad is a production engineer at a bicycle company and part of his job includes inspecting broken bikes and drafting the design repairs for their repair” (Bartlett). Brad is considering replacing a broken brake cable with a more durable material, even though the customer did not request it in their order and specifically requested that “No aesthetic changes be made to the bike” (Bartlett). Brad’s manager suggests that his considered actions would go against the company’s policy of “The customer is always right.” Should Brad disobey the manager and the customer to possibly lose his job or go along with

On the first day of my Introduction to Ethics course, our class was given a fun thought experiment to get us to actively think about a tough decision. My classmate’s answers to the thought experiment were split and later on many students seeming contradicted themselves as the experiment revealed a second part. Going through this process was interesting and the best part about it was that we were not given a correct answer to the thought experiment. Now that the class is coming to an end, I will use the knowledge that I have gained from this class to come to an answer to this thought experiment and to explain how I arrived to it.

250787990 Professor Klimchuk Mr. Marler Section 008 Introduction to Philosophy 1020 14 November 2014 The Trolley Problem In this essay, I will argue that the Kantian moral theory is a better way to assess the trolley problem then that of the Utilitarian moral theory. I will explain the trolley problem and how each of the moral theories would assess the situation. I will then go on to explain why the Kantian moral theory, is the best theory to assess the situation.

Throughout life, individuals are often faced with a multitude of moral dilemmas which can be difficult to assess given the factors of the situation and consequences, based on what is right and wrong. In this paper I will be assessing the Trolley Problem in relation to Utilitarianism and Deontology and will conclude which theory is the best way to behave given the situation. In the first paragraph, I will begin by discussing the Trolley Problem followed by the next paragraph’s which will explaining how Utilitarianism and Deontology would approach the situation. Furthermore, I will be discussing which theory I believe is right in regards to the best way to behaving in society, given the possible outcomes of the problem. Since the moral issue of killing and letting die are close in hand, Deontology is the only explainable way to behave because this theory approaches all situations in regard to what is fair and acceptable for all, while Utilitarianism takes an approach that degrades humanity and differs from person to person.

The trolley problem can be expanded to discuss a number of related ethical dilemmas, all referring to the conflicts inherent in utilitarianism and consequentialist ethics. The problem with the trolley driver scenario is that the driver is faced with a choice of whether to infringe on the rights of one man (the man on the tracks) or whether to allow the trolley to crash, thereby killing the five people on board. The driver is stuck between two equally unfortunate situations, and the issue calls into question whether it is more ethical to save five lives than it is to refrain from infringing on the life on an innocent man. Inherent to the problem is the fact that it is impossible to know whether the diversion of the trolley will in fact save the five lives.