Trolley problem, initiated by Philippa Foot, is a situation in which there is a runaway trolley and the only way to save five people on the tracks is to sacrifice one person (Kvalnes, 2015). There are many versions of the trolley problem with regard to how the one should be sacrificed, make trade-offs in order for five persons to be saved. In this paper, there are two trolley case used to compare with the autonomous car case. The first case, called the switch case, come from Philippa Foot (1967), in which there is a third person who are standing next to a signal switch. He can control the trolley which is running with a high speed down a side track by turning the switch.
Euthanasia means “a good death” and “dying well”. A good death means dying with peaceful, painless, lucid and loved ones gathering around. Euthanasia defined as the termination of ill people’s life aim to reduce suffering from incurable and painful disease. Euthanasia classify into two major types, included passive and active. In passive euthanasia ill people dead by withholding of common treatment, such as antibiotics.
An example of this is when he said, “You don’t use this kind of knife that way. You have to hold it like this to release the blade. In order to stab downward, you would have to change your grip.” (Rose 61) This is how juror 5 gives critical advice and changes the view of other people. He knows certain facts that other people don’t because of where he came from and that can be very helpful in certain
It’s usually not morally right to kill another human being, but sometimes it can be the only or best option. Killing someone can be the only or best option if killing them would give them the least amount of pain when they died. In Of Mice and Men killing Lennie was George’s the best choice for himself, Lennie, and every other person, because Lennie could have hurt other people. Therefore, it was best for George to kill Lennie because it saved Lennie from pain and saved other people from getting injured by Lennie in the
Even though it is true that taking the life of another is not right, it is even truer that the punishment should fit the crime. The death penalty is an exercise of justice that promotes retribution for crime and moral punishment for those who choose to take human life. Also, it prevents society 's worse offenders from re-offending, and it provides justice for the victims whose lives were cut short without a second thought. To better understand why capital punishment is a justifiable act, Kant 's theory gives a clear and logical understanding of the eye for an eye approach. Additionally the utilitarian view also explains why capital punishment is justifiable in regards to comfort for the victim 's family and prevention of re-offending.
Montresor’s family motto translates to: no one provokes me with impunity. Fortunato has insulted Montresor, which seals his fate in Montresor’s eyes. Once someone has insulted Montresor, that someone can expect punishment. The family motto confines Montresor’s mind into believing that Fortunato must be killed. Despite the lack of vindication for Fortunato, Montresor is bound to be affected negatively by the murder.
This YouTube video presents with a terrifying moral dilemma. Scenario one introduced the trolley problem as if I was a rail yard worker in control of a lever that can switch the track. When suddenly comes, a runaway trolley barreling down the track heading towards five people who are completely unaware of the runaway trolley. If this trolley continues this track all five people would be killed. I have the option of pulling the lever allowing the trolley to switch tracks and save of five people from their impending doom.
However, this interchanging use of these terms is strictly not appropriate. While it is acknowledged that there may be no morally significant difference between assisted suicide and voluntary, active euthanasia, there is nevertheless a qualitative difference between them. According to Brock (1993), with assisted suicide, a qualified medical practitioner supplies the patient with means for taking his own life, unlike in the case of voluntary active euthanasia; it is the patient and not the doctor, who acts last. To put it simply, in the case of voluntary, active euthanasia it is the qualified medical practitioner who kills the patient, whereas in the case of assisted suicide it is the patient who kills his or her self (Johnstone,
According to Hinman (5), just punishment is the one that happens to those who are proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. This is important because capital punishment is irreversible and hence only the guilty should be executed. However, there are many cases of innocent people who have been sentenced to death only to have their appeals granted at the last minute, or worse, denied and executed. It is on these grounds that Bedau (2007) argues against the death penalty because it is unjust and unfair. About unfairness, he goes on to add that racial and economic discrimination are also a factor to consider when meting out capital punishment.
Capital punishment. The big debate on who gets to decide whether someone lives or dies? Pacifist would say that it’s unethical and inhumane and that it is highly ironic that you’re killing those who kill, just to get the point across not to kill. Realist, like me, however, would retort back that by not ridding ourselves of these kind of people, it would feel as if we were just letting them get away with what they’ve done, without them knowing that there are serious consequences to your actions. The actions of certain criminals is the main reason why we need the death penalty.
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.
In the trolley problem it is apparent, especially using the utilitarianism theory that it is morally right to save the five people on the tracks and kill one person, whether it is the fat person or the man on the track. If I were in the person responsible for saving the five other people I would most likely just change the tracks because if I pushed the fat man off the bridge to stop the train I would be killing a man, who was innocent, with no connection to the train workers. The man on the tracks applied for the job and knew the risks when going into the field. I still would not want to kill either one but if I had to make a choice I would choose to change the tracks. I don’t answer consistently because it is hard to choose which option is
Fink also keep the testimonies, confidential. The unsettling truth is that I believe and know there were "mercy killings." In that type of situation the staff wanted to eliminate more of the problem. If only the disaster plan had been calculated correctly, less lives would have been lost or should I say taken. I appreciate this story.
For someone to be found guilty of murder, they should at least requisite the motive or intent of purposely trying to bring physical pain to the victim. As a result of, the victim knowingly or unknowingly having trickled a nerve of theirs. George was trying to do the complete opposite. In this case, all he wanted to do was avoid the town’s men killing his beloved friend Lennie, and ensure he died the most comfortable and least painful way possible George did not have the mental state to kill Lennie, Lennie Smalls to him is what some might call “a brother from another mother.” My client dedicated his life to ensure Lennie’s safety and well-being. For instance, Lennie once put George in the circumstance of having to flee a state and his job because Lennie committed a
Capital Punishment Punishment is the imposition of a penalty as retribution for a crime, and the retribution deserves those who do the crime. The main idea of this chapter is whether the killer deserves to die or not, and we ought to kill them or not. Stephen Nathanson argues against the punishment that leads to execution. He said that the actual and moral beliefs based on the death penalty are wrong and must be repealed. Many people said that the death penalty is the best way to deter murder and thus save lives.