What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person

  • by

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person

After reading Chapter 3 of the textbook, consider the following scenario, taken from “Going Deeper: The Trolley Problem”:
What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person? If the overall consequences were the same, would it matter if you were intentionally harming that person or not? This problem is raised by the philosopher Philippa Foot (2002c) in her famous “trolley problem.”
Imagine that you are standing next to a railroad track, and a runaway train is careening down the track. In the path of the train are five workers (let’s suppose they cannot escape the path of the train; perhaps they are in the middle of a long, narrow bridge high above a ravine). You know that if the train continues on its path, it will certainly kill those five workers.
However, you see that there is a sidetrack, and on the sidetrack is a single worker. Let’s also suppose that you know that if the train goes onto the sidetrack, that single worker will be killed.
As it happens, you are standing next to a lever that can send the train onto the sidetrack. Therefore, you are faced with a decision: to pull the lever and send the train to the sidetrack, killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do nothing and allow the train to continue on its course, killing the five workers.
[There is an interactive illustration of this in your textbook, so be sure to take a look]
Now consider this slight variation:
Instead of standing next to a lever that can switch the train to another track, you are standing on a bridge overlooking the track, and next to you is a very large man (think someone the size of an NFL lineman – someone who is just big, not necessarily obese or otherwise unhealthy). He’s leaning precariously over the railing such that barely a push would send him over the railing and onto the tracks. Let’s suppose that he’s large enough to stop the train, thus sparing the five workers, but his own life will be lost. Let’s also suppose that you aren’t large enough to stop the train, so it would do no good to throw yourself over.
Should you throw the large man over the bridge?
In the course of the week’s discussion, you will need to do the following (not necessarily in this order):
Engage with the text:
What would a utilitarian say is the right action in each of the cases? Give the reasoning by referring to Chapter 3 of the textbook, especially John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading, and be as precise as you can.
Reflect on yourself and others:
Do you agree with that? Why or why not?
Do you find yourself agreeing with the utilitarian about the answer to one of the scenarios but not the other? If so, explain what accounts for that difference. Does this point to objections, limitations, or flaws in the utilitarian approach? Explain.
If you found yourself agreeing with the utilitarian about both scenarios, how would you defend your view against those that might have given different answers?
ch_reasoning_thames

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person

 

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person  Do you need help with What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person ? At Homework Geeks, we can take care of all your academic needs. we can write your papers, do your presentations, labs, discussion questions, and final exams too. What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person 

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person 

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person 

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person

After reading Chapter 3 of the textbook, consider the following scenario, taken from “Going Deeper: The Trolley Problem”:
What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person? If the overall consequences were the same, would it matter if you were intentionally harming that person or not? This problem is raised by the philosopher Philippa Foot (2002c) in her famous “trolley problem.”
Imagine that you are standing next to a railroad track, and a runaway train is careening down the track. In the path of the train are five workers (let’s suppose they cannot escape the path of the train; perhaps they are in the middle of a long, narrow bridge high above a ravine). You know that if the train continues on its path, it will certainly kill those five workers.
However, you see that there is a sidetrack, and on the sidetrack is a single worker. Let’s also suppose that you know that if the train goes onto the sidetrack, that single worker will be killed.
As it happens, you are standing next to a lever that can send the train onto the sidetrack. Therefore, you are faced with a decision: to pull the lever and send the train to the sidetrack, killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do nothing and allow the train to continue on its course, killing the five workers.
[There is an interactive illustration of this in your textbook, so be sure to take a look]
Now consider this slight variation:
Instead of standing next to a lever that can switch the train to another track, you are standing on a bridge overlooking the track, and next to you is a very large man (think someone the size of an NFL lineman – someone who is just big, not necessarily obese or otherwise unhealthy). He’s leaning precariously over the railing such that barely a push would send him over the railing and onto the tracks. Let’s suppose that he’s large enough to stop the train, thus sparing the five workers, but his own life will be lost. Let’s also suppose that you aren’t large enough to stop the train, so it would do no good to throw yourself over.
Should you throw the large man over the bridge?
In the course of the week’s discussion, you will need to do the following (not necessarily in this order):
Engage with the text:
What would a utilitarian say is the right action in each of the cases? Give the reasoning by referring to Chapter 3 of the textbook, especially John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading, and be as precise as you can.
Reflect on yourself and others:
Do you agree with that? Why or why not?
Do you find yourself agreeing with the utilitarian about the answer to one of the scenarios but not the other? If so, explain what accounts for that difference. Does this point to objections, limitations, or flaws in the utilitarian approach? Explain.
If you found yourself agreeing with the utilitarian about both scenarios, how would you defend your view against those that might have given different answers?
ch_reasoning_thames

What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *