Pros And Cons Of The Trolleyy

In this paper, I will explicate how a Utilitarian and a Kantian would understand the Trolley Problem and describe why I consider the Utilitarian approach to fare better in the case of the Trolley Problem. On one hand, a Utilitarian, a believer in the philosophy of Utilitarianism, believes that a morally admirable action is one that helps the maximum number of people. A Kantian, on the other hand, is a believer and follower of the Kantian ethics, which fundamentally preach that the correctness or wrongness of one’s actions depends on if one carries out one’s duty, and not on the consequences of one’s actions. In order to further understand the perspectives of these two philosophies, I will explain how they would comprehend the Trolley Problem, which is, essentially, a theoretical moral predicament where a trolley is speeding down a railway track and five people are tied to the track and a bystander has two options: either pull a lever, divert the train to an alternate railway track with one person on it and kill that one person and save five people, and thus intentionally commit homicide, or the bystander doesn’t pull the lever and lets five people die, therefore submissively allowing five deaths.

In this paper, I will explain John Stuart Mill’s moral theory of Utilitarianism, what I think it means, and how it works. I will also explain the Dax Cowart case, and determine if Dax’s choice to die was morally right or wrong. In order to fully understand the implications of Dax’s decision, and to accurately determine its affect on those his decision involves, I will break down and analyze the affect of Dax’s decision for Dax, his mother, Ada, and the Doctor. Lastly, I will gather prior evidence and form a valid conclusion of whether Dax’s choice was morally right or wrong.

The Trolley Dilemma is a scenario where a train heading straight toward five men working on the tracks, have no idea the train is heading toward them, and nowhere to go. It would appear that death is inevitable. On another track, there is another worker all working alone. He too has no idea the train is coming. You are standing next to the lever that can switch the tracks. What would you do? Would you do nothing, resulting in killing five people, who might not know what hit them, or do you pull the lever, diverting the train, killing only one which allows the five to survive?

To apply utilitarianism to this ethical controversy one has to evaluate which option would benefit society

The Trolley Dilemma is a scenario where a train heading straight toward five men working on the tracks, have no idea the train is heading toward them, and nowhere to go. It would appear that death is inevitable. On another track there is another worker all working alone. He too has no idea the train is coming. You are standing next to the lever that can switch the tracks. What would you do? Would you do nothing, resulting in killing five people, who might not know what hit them, or do you pull the lever, diverting the train, killing only one which allows the five to survive?

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?

In Peter Singer’s essay “The Singer Solution to World Poverty”, published on September 5th, 1999 in The New York Times Magazine, Singer claims that the solution to world poverty is for Americans to donate excess income to aid organizations. His article consists of a gathering of exaggerated situations which he uses to engage readers, while also adequately supporting an argument of moral duty by comparing the hypothetical scenarios to Americans who do not donate. Singer exhibits an appeal to pathos to a substantial amount throughout his article. The provided situations set an outline for the reader to feel certain, appealing emotions.

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

The trolley problems consist of hypothetical scenarios in which you, as a bystander, must decide who to save in a variety of set ups. For example, you, as a bystander, can switch the track of the trolley to hit one worker rather than five. In another example, do you push one person off of a bridge to stop the trolley from hitting five workers, thus saving five individuals as opposed to one? Or do you let the trolley run its course and hit the five workers? These questions are useful in bioethics because they cause a person to think carefully about their beliefs and test their consistency. In the first example, one person might opt to change the track so only one person gets killed as opposed to five. Following the same moral principle that killing one is better than killing

The ethical dilemma I shared with my best friend for their opinion was the one about the lifeboat with five people but only enough supplies for four people to survive. My best friend immediately stated, “everyone must live, no one will be cast off the boat” (Taylor, 2017). She believed that there was no way to determine all the evidence listed in the dilemma. A rescue boat could come before land was found providing food, water, and safety which would save all five aboard the lifeboat. On a different note a shark could capsize the boat and leave all 5 fighting for their life in the water. So to be asked to justify whose life is worth more in regards to saving someone is not something she would feel comfortable choosing. My best friend comes

I am in favor of the hermeneutic method of reasoning in decision-making, as it seems to cover all aspects important to the particular dilemma presented. As the book alludes to, life is a constant flow of interpretations

The example of the sinking ship and Holmes’ decision to throw people off of the lifeboat represents an Act Utilitarian belief. Holmes’ decision making process can be seen as morally right when one assesses the amount of pleasure and pain that can be expected from his actions. The lifeboat is the only method of getting to shore, and the less people that are in it the better the chance they all have of surviving since it will be less likely that the lifeboat will capsize. The boat holds fourteen people, so it is best to take exactly

The Trolley Problem is a scenario possessing two similar versions that begs the question of whether or not it is ethical to kill a person in order to save five. In both versions of this problem, there is a trolley approaching a track with people tied down. In the first version there are two tracks; the first with five people tied down and the other with one person tied down, as the train is approaching the five people. Beside the track there is a switch

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.

The last dilemma faced is whose life is of more value, those who use the bridge for transportation or those who use it for suicide. This is a dilemma because “the screen might create dangerous wind resistance and make the bridge structurally unstable,” which increases the risk of those who use the bridge for transportation (111). Although this risk is undoubtedly small, it still places a vastly larger amount of people in danger. This is known because there is an “average of 20 to 25 [deaths] per year” by suicide, yet a larger number of vehicles, which have the possibility of containing more than one passenger, pass over the bridge every minute ("Traffic/Toll Data" 1). The resulting dilemma is whether one should slightly increase the risk for millions of people in order to drastically decrease the risk for an individual. By Utilitarianism, you should choose the action that decreases the risk the most for the largest number of people, but due to not being able to truly quantify the risk, the decision remains unclear. An ethical dilemma does not have a distinct solution as no action is completely without an error in morality, in order to achieve a good outcome, it is essential to dissect the issue and identify the primary stakeholders.