What is the ethical thing to do in the Trolley Problem?
The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person.
Which principles are in conflict in the Trolley Problem?
Foot argues that Trolley Driver involves a conflict between two negative duties: the duty not to kill one and the duty not to kill five. The duty not to kill five is stronger than the duty not to kill one, so it is morally permissible to kill one to save five others.
What does the Trolley Problem tell us about the nature of ethics?
The trolley problem is a question of human morality, and an example of a philosophical view called consequentialism. This view says that morality is defined by the consequences of an action, and that the consequences are all that matter.
What is the best answer to the trolley problem?
The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Adam diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.
Is Philippa Foot a utilitarian?
Utilitarianism is a particular form of Consequentialism, and as such it is radically flawed; depending as it does on a vacuous use of expressions such as ‘best state of affairs.
What does the trolley problem says about you?
The trolley problem highlights a fundamental tension between two schools of moral thought. The utilitarian perspective dictates that the most appropriate action is the one that achieves the greatest good for the greatest number.
What is Thomson’s solution to the trolley problem?
lot, each workman’s expected utility, prior to that determination, is greater if the bystander flips the switch should Bystander arise than if he does not. And it is in virtue of this, she held, that the bystander may flip the switch. These are Thomson’s solutions to the Trolley Problem.
Which do you think should be given more weight when making moral decisions the consequences of the action or the intention of the person doing the act Why?
In conclusion, a person’s intentions are more important than the action’s effects when determining wrongness. Since a moral judgement should be immune to luck, and effects are more affected by luck than intentions, the injustice of moral luck clearly leads to this conclusion.