The Archery Problem: The Trolley Problem By Philippa Foot

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?

There are not many activities out there that relax and soothe me quite like shooting my bow. It is not as simple as it sounds though, just pulling on the string, releasing the string, and watching the arrow fly towards your target. There are a number of aspects that must be taken into consideration when trying to shoot a bow and arrow efficiently, this is where we will get into the physics of archery.

Fate works in mysterious ways, everyone makes choices out of their own free will which affects their

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 life, there is a cycle of life that everyone follows, however, there will be a time when sudden situations come and one is forced to make life changing decisions. One of the decisions is Allowing someone to die, what this means is simply there is a crucial decision in life that for any reason this is the only one that matters. It all comes down to an irreversible and incurable choice that needs to be made.

Although several aspects of life are predetermined, there are moments people have control over their fate. For example, no one has control over death, and even though many refuse their undeniable fate, it cannot be avoided. However, there are choices we make that mold our future, thus, changing our fate. On various occasions, there will be a fork in one’s path, and that person will have to choose which journey to take. In life, there are small, ineffective decisions you have to resolve, but there are also larger, life altering choices. Of course, others may feel the same way about fate, or entirely different. In fact, since the beginning of time, authors of literature have discussed their ideas on such matters, a few examples being Dr. Seuss, Charles Dickens, and Edgar Allen Poe. These authors, famous for their thought provoking literary work, provide differing opinions on the fate and destiny of a human being through the use of allegory.

In this paper there were many points to prove that tally decided her own fate. One of the many sacrifices was her choice to go to The Smoke, a nother choice she made was when she escapes The Smoke. With these evidence Tally has shaped her own fate, other’s help her on the journey but she decides what to do. This can be translated into the real world when you decide something by yourself but it the meantime it is sacrificing something else. Tally shapes others fate while deciding her own.

This statement is underlining support to Singer’s main claim. He continues by saying, “If you still think that it was very wrong of Bob not to throw the switch that would have…saved the child’s life, then it is hard to see how you could deny that it is also very wrong not to send money…” By adding this statement, Singer is inviting readers to deeply contemplate moral duties. Singer demonstrates an appeal to ethos by introducing himself as a utilitarian philosopher. He starts by defining his label.

Obviously, no one is taking 200 yard shots with even the most powerful crossbow, so long range capability isn't a concern while bow hunting. Now it may be a big concern to the bow hunter who also uses a rifle (or even just plays golf, but that's another topic). But just focusing on the act of bow hunting, the typical 100 yard range limit of most dedicated bow hunting range finders would be fine.

Introduced by Oxford University Philosopher Philippa Foot in 1967 the trolley problem stays a very controversial topic with no conclusive answer being presented .Many philosophical theorists decided to make use of reason as philosopher

Yet after his encounter with the witches, his mind was going back and forth trying to figure out how he should act upon the prophecy of becoming king! It was by then that the idea of fate had been planted into his head, and with such good title to come with it, why wouldn’t he want to believe his ‘fate’? Something that I found very interesting about the witches was that looking closely at line 24-25 when one of the witches says, "Though his bark cannot be lost, yet it shall be tempest-tossed." From what I seemed to understand, these lines seemed to really show the limitations to the witches’ powers, because they were basically saying that they could only make life rough for the clueless captain, but they could not kill him. I think that this is really important to all the people who thought that the witches had ‘written out’ Macbeth’s fate because in the same way as the previous stated scene they can tempt Macbeth with predictions about his future, but they cannot make him choose evil. Meaning that in this scene, one of the conflicts is obviously fate vs. free will! All the witches really did was find a way of stirring up evil, by tempting Macbeth into choosing to opt for evil instead of good. “If chance will have me king, why, chance may crown me, without my stir.” (Act 1. Scene iii. Line 10). Here, Macbeth seems content to leave his future to "chance." If "chance" will have

Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can. If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railmano n the left side of the track, "Leftie", and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railmano n the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for trans-

Control. Who is in control of our actions and decisions and what happens as a result of them? As humans, we like to believe that we are in control of our actions and decisions and that we are in complete control of where we go and what we do in life, but is that really the case? Are there other factors besides us that help determine where we go and what we do in life? Is there a supreme being, such as God, that controls where our actions and decisions will take us and even influences our decisions, or does chance/fate and only chance/fate play a factor in decisions we make and their outcomes? Do other people have the ability to control our actions and us, or is that not possible?

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

In “Mortal Questions," Thomas Nagel attempts to show that some human experiences are completely beyond understanding. Nagel attempts to justify that even though your life has ends, the choices one makes will not influence the end result. Nagel first clarifies his position by defining a few terms. Agent, as Nagel describes it, is defined as being in control of one’s life. Nagel states that end results are influenced by a combination of factors and that it is not in the agent’s control. In this paper, I will describe Nagels reasoning for believing that one cannot control their ends and fates. Fate is the event beyond a person’s control. Then, I will provide two reasons to object that the idea that one’s actions do not influence the end results is false.