In this essay, I will be able to give an overall insight on the ideas given from three philosophical theories, Egoism, Utilitarianism, and Relativism. To give a brief explanation of each theory, Egoism encompasses
Philippa Foot presented a series of moral dilemmas when she discussed abortion and the Doctrine of Double Effect. One famous problem of her was the trolley dilemma: “..he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track onto another; five men are working on one track and one on the other; anyone the tack he enters is bound to be killed.” (Foot, 1967, p. 2) What should the driver do? Despite what he does, he will harm someone!1
Ethical theories are ways of telling right from wrong and include guidelines of how to live and act in an ethical way. For example when faced with a difficult situation in your life, you can use ethical theories to assist you in making the right decision. One key theory is consequentialism, which says that an individual’s correct moral response is related to the outcome/ consequence of the act and not its intentions/ motives. Early writers on this theory were Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, a modern writer is Peter Singer. For example Brenda Grey has asked for the asthma specialist to visit her weekly, and to decide if this is necessary the professionals involved have to look at how it would affect her wellbeing. This is done by questioning
I think I will divert the train to the right killing one person because one person is less important than five. Sometimes it is important to do what is right than what is morally good to do. The utilitarianism is a moral theory that gives happiness to the number of people in the society and it has been considered greatness, an action is morally appropriate if its outcomes lead to happiness and wrong if it results in sadness. I will begin by describing what Mill might do in the Trolley situation. Next, I will contrast what Kant might do in this situation and lastly, I will be also going to give my opinion on this Trolley situation.
runaway trolley and the only way to save five people on the tracks is to sacrifice
Bernard Williams’ essay, A Critique of Utilitarianism, launches a rather scathing criticism of J. J. C. Smart’s, An Outline of a System of Utilitarian ethics. Even though Williams claims his essay is not a direct response to Smart’s paper, the manner in which he constantly refers to Smart’s work indicates that Smart’s version of Utilitarianism, referred to as act-Utilitarianism, is the main focus of Williams’ critique.
In this assignment I would like to explore the Trolley Problem, more specifically the variant which is called Bystander at the Switch. First I would propose my opinion on what should be done and why. Then I would propose a counter-argument which may be invoked in response to my reasoning, of which I would attempt to resolve.
Moral theories are theories that help us distinguish between a right or a wrong action. Adequate moral theories help us understand that what we should or shouldn’t do in certain situations. Two of the most famous moral theories are Utilitarianism and Kantianism. According to Utilitarianism, an action is right if only if it out of all the other action gives out the maximum utility. In oppose to that, Kantianism says that an action is right if and only if, in performing that action, the person does not treat anyone as a mean and treats everyone as an end in itself.
Throughout history many great philosophers have attempted to unravel the origins of virtues by developing moral theories of their own. This document is designed to provide the reader with an overview of some of the more popular theories concerning morals. Three of the most popular moral theories are… Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism. Though Utilitarianism, Kantianism, and Aristotelianism differ in many ways, they also share similar fundamentals.
In this age of groundbreaking technology and completely autonomous cars, we are faced with several new morally challenging questions. This is the future and we have to answer them. If we don’t, we run the risk of never advancing as a species. Lauren Davis concurs with this statement in her article “Would You Pull the Trolley Switch? Does it Matter?” written in The Atlantic “you eventually reach a point where you have to make some decisions, and not everybody will agree.” Whose life should be valued more? In the following situation: a completely autonomous car on a collision course with a pedestrian(s), and the only other option is to swerve and kill the passenger(s). Who should the car protect? In most scenario variations, the car default should be programmed to swerve and kill the passenger with the expectations of unbuckled passengers and infant/pregnant passengers.
I am first presented with a scenario involving a runaway trolley that is out of control and if left alone it will kill five people. However, if I were to be standing next to the lever the trolley would switch path and only kill one person. In a different scenario I am on a bridge next to a better large person and I am watching the trolley head towards the five individuals, and if I stand around and do nothing they will be killed. However, I have the option of choosing to stand around and watch the five individuals get killed or push the very large man over and manage to stop the trolley and save the five individuals but kill the very large individual. After reading the scenarios and evaluating my options, I found myself conflicted in deciding which would be the best choice. A utilitarian response seems to be drastic because there are no limits set to what an individual is not allowed to do in the pursuit of their happiness. While my choices were based on allowing the trolley to take its original course and not get involved in the situation myself.
In this paper I will argue the following. People face moral choices. Often these choices are hard, and a person will be torn between two options. Both options seem like they have an overwhelming reason behind them, but a choice is necessary. Some consider this to be a moral paradox. I will then argue that there is never a paradoxical moral choice.
A number of problems surround the second question; the most obvious of which are limited time, the limited capacity of human foresight to calculate the maximum number of happiness, and the inability of the theory to advise on the time frame utilitarianism is to be applied to; how do you know the maximum number of happiness for the next 10 years doesn’t mean greater overall unhappiness in the next 50 years, so what time period should one keep in mind when considering an issue from a utilitarian stand point, 1 year, 5 years, 10, 20? This lack of clarity further adds to the impractical nature of the ideology.
In this essay, I will be comparing Deontology to Utilitarianism. I will attempt to substantiate why I am justified in arguing that Deontology is a superior moral theory than Utilitarianism.
In today’s world, many people tend to have a set of ethical principles which is one of the guidelines for them to follow on. The question is how he or she defines ethics? To answer, Ethics is best defined as knowing what is right or wrong in the action based on the moral principles. Moreover, it is also known as the branch of knowledge that deals with ethical issues. In relation, there are some ethical theories which deal with the ethical issues. The consequentialist theorist can be taken as an example. Consequentialist theories are a theory in which it is based on the consequences of an action. Based on the movie assignment, The Island, there are some major views that the consequentialist theories have on the movie. One of the major