Scribd
Upload
6 views2 pages

Assignment 2

The document discusses the 'Trolley Problem,' a moral dilemma introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot, which questions the morality of sacrificing one life to save five. It explores utilitarianism, arguing that consent is crucial in moral decisions, and highlights inconsistencies in utilitarian views regarding actions that promote well-being. Additionally, it distinguishes between 'doing harm' and 'allowing harm,' emphasizing the moral implications of direct versus indirect actions in the context of the dilemma.

Uploaded by

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

Assignment 2

The document discusses the 'Trolley Problem,' a moral dilemma introduced by philosopher Philippa Foot, which questions the morality of sacrificing one life to save five. It explores utilitarianism, arguing that consent is crucial in moral decisions, and highlights inconsistencies in utilitarian views regarding actions that promote well-being. Additionally, it distinguishes between 'doing harm' and 'allowing harm,' emphasizing the moral implications of direct versus indirect actions in the context of the dilemma.

Uploaded by

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

Maggie Koreen

Student #7912003
Intro to Philosophy
November 16th
Assignment Two

1. A) The “Trolley Problem” is a sequence of dilemma’s that were first introduced by


philosopher Philippa Foot. The original problem describes the reader as the driver of a
trolley with broken brakes in a mountainous landscape where there are two sets of
tracks, one containing five men and the latter only one. Foot asks the reader whether it is
morally permissible to change the train’s direction and hit the track only containing one
man.
B) The “Trolley Problem” is meant to show the moral discrepancies that can arise when
presented with an issue that has a dire outcome no matter the choice. Or in other words,
whether certain actions can be permitted if it assists in the wellbeing of a larger number
of people.
2. A) Utitilitarianism is the philosophy that the morality of an action is constituted by
whether it provides the most well-being and least ill-being to the world.
B) The strongest response to the utilitarianism view on the “Trolley Problem”, is that the
one person who is on the track was not asked whether they were willing to sacrifice
themselves for the five other workers. The worker would not have been hit if the trolley
driver did not change the track. Thus, they did not consent to this outcome.
3. A) There is inconsistency between “i-iii”, because “i-ii” states that wellbeing is the only
thing that holds intrinsic value, therefore we must do whatever promotes the most value.
“iii” states that there is a difference in the permissability between pushing a large man in
front of the tracks, and pulling a switch to direct the trolley to the big man already on the
tracks. However, both outcomes promote the most wellbeing, therefore both acts should
be permissible.
B) “ii” should be given up or altered in order for this statement to be consistent. If it is no
longer stated that we must always do what promotes the most wellbeing, this allows for
instances such as the large man being pushed into the tracks to be considered
impermissable.
4. A)“Doing harm” means that you have taken action to cause harm, while “allowing harm”
means that you are simply allowing events to take place in the way that they were going
to occur naturally.
B) “Doing vs. allowing” harm can become relevant when examining the moral difference
between turning the track as the trolley driver, or pushing a large man in the way of the
track. When turning the track you are “allowing” harm, as harm is simply a byproduct of
the choice and not the original intent. However, pushing a large man in the way of the
trolley is “doing” harm, as you are intentionally causing harm to another person who was
an innocent bystander. Or in other words, the bystander is not involved in the trolley
dilemma at all until interference is commenced.

You might also like