Scribd
Upload
279 views2 pages

The Trolley Problem

1) The author discusses their perspective on the trolley problem and their belief that saving the maximum number of lives is the duty in such a scenario. 2) While they acknowledge people are reluctant to directly cause a death, the author argues one must make the objective decision to save the most lives based on numbers alone. 3) The author believes that if presented with the scenario and ability to save lives by redirecting the trolley, their responsibility is to maximize the number of lives saved.

Uploaded by

Angelina Suter
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
279 views2 pages

The Trolley Problem

1) The author discusses their perspective on the trolley problem and their belief that saving the maximum number of lives is the duty in such a scenario. 2) While they acknowledge people are reluctant to directly cause a death, the author argues one must make the objective decision to save the most lives based on numbers alone. 3) The author believes that if presented with the scenario and ability to save lives by redirecting the trolley, their responsibility is to maximize the number of lives saved.

Uploaded by

Angelina Suter
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

Francese 1

Angelina Francese

PHL 135-01

Professor Taylor

11 February 2019

The Trolley Problem: Paper 1

I understand how many people would be conflicted when faced with the trolley problem.

I believe that most people are unable to make a definitive position when discussing death

because they would like to believe that they are better than that. From our in-class discussions, I

have gathered that people are most reluctant to answer questions when there is a “personality”

behind the scenario. When there is a personal connection with the possible victim, they would

rather not conclude that would kill them. For example, in the plain scenario, peers were very

reluctant to shoot down the plain when they were told about the innocent lives of those on board.

The children and kittens were enough to convince many peers to let the building of many people

die. However, they would also stick to their original opinions. Many were afraid that if they

“compromised” their answers in class that it would mean something about their morals.

I would like to propose that we should tell the one person to try and get out of the way

before the trolley could crush them. However, I know that you would argue that there is no space

for them to jump out of the way and someone must die in those mines. If that is true, then I

would send the trolley toward the one miner.

If there were two miners in the left and on in the right, I would still send it to the right.

However, if it was evenly split, I would not interfere because someone has to die and now I have

not interfered with God’s plan.

I believe that it comes down to the numbers and the greater good. “Numbers count” to
Francese 2

me. With the trolley problem, though we do choose to interfere with fate, I think that saving the

maximum amount of people is my duty. By killing the one you are saving the five and those five

lives are numerically more valuable than the one. I believe that you cannot make the subjective

decision of whether the one life means more, and you objectively only have numbers on your

side. I believe that if the thought has come to your mind and you have the time to save them, then

it is your duty and responsibility to save as many people as you can.

You might also like