Write Up 3.edited

docx

School

South America University *

*We aren’t endorsed by this school

Course

100

Subject

Law

Date

Nov 24, 2024

Type

docx

Pages

Uploaded by CasperNyoveri

Surname 1 Student’s Name Professor Course Date Write Up 3 Scholars and practitioners alike in the field of ethics have for eons now relied on cases and scenarios which illustrate ethical dilemmas and decision-making processes involved. In most situations, the cases take the form of moral dilemmas or ethical paradoxes with the characters being required to evaluate the consequences of their actions and options. The subsequent essay presents an expository analysis of the Trolley case and Dudley and Stephens’s case. The analysis is guided by the thesis that understanding the ethical implications of the decisions made by each character can improve insight into the best fit moral theories individuals can use in their day-to- day lives.  Describe the trolley case and Dudley and Stephens case. What ethical issues were raised in each case? What would you do if you were the driver of the trolley car? Why? The Trolley case refers to a fictional scenario whereby a character is faced with the dilemma of saving the lives of others. In this case, there is a trolley headed down a track with two diversions as the character is driving it [ CITATION Pan221 \l 1033 ] . On one diversion, there are 5 people standing whereas the other diversion has only one person.

Surname 2 The driver has access to a switch that can make the trolley change to either side and they are compounded with the dilemma of killing one person to save 5 and vice versa. The ethical issue raised in this case is that of the value of lives and decision-making [ CITATION Pan221 \l 1033 ] . The case highlights tha t people are faced with dilemmas that prompt them to think through the consequences of their actions and determine whether the moral value is gauged by the outcome [ CITATION Pan221 \l 1033 ] . The Dudley and Stephens case, on the other hand, explores a cannibalism scenario. The defendants, Dudley and Stephens, killed one of their colleagues in order to save themselves from starvation [ CITATION Nal18 \l 1033 ] . The court surmised that they were guilty of murder as per the rul e of law although morally speaking, they had every right to save their lives at the expense of their colleague [ CITATION Nal18 \l 1033 ] . The ethical issue raised is similar to the Trolley case due to the fact that it explores whether it is ethical to take one life in order to preserve others.  What would you do if you were the driver of the trolley car? Why? Discuss which moral theory (theories) can be applied to support your decision As the driver of the trolley car, I would switch it to the track with one person in order to protect the other 5. This decision is aligned with the utilitarianism moral theory which highlights that the best actions are those which maximize the greatest good for the maximum number of people [ CITATION Pan221 \l 1033 ] . In lieu of this, the outcome derived from the consequences of my actions is morally valuable as they protect others even at the expense of one person.  What would you do if you were the captain of the boat in Stephens's case? Why? Discuss relevant moral theories.

Surname 3 If I was the captain of the boat, I would uphold the idea of killing one person to save the rest. As per the deontological theory, the action is inherently right or wrong regardless of the consequences. Therefore, allowing my men to die on the boat just to save one person would be deemed as an outright failure and wrong decision [ CITATION Nal18 \l 1033 ] . As a matter of principle, Stephens and Dudley are faced with the dilemma of negative and positive duties. The negative duties are more urgent in this situation and weigh more than the positive duties therefore it is justified for them to violate the set dictums in order to sustain their lives[ CITATION Pan221 \l 1033 \m Nal18].  What are some possible barriers that prevent you from acting on your ethical decisions? Please try to use your experience. The topmost barrier that might prevent me from acting on my ethical decisions is moral rationalizations. This refers to the inchoate ability of an individual to reinterpret their immoral actions and term them as moral. It often arises due to a conflict of motivations and a desire to perceive myself as moral [ CITATION Mar171 \l 1033 ] . This barrier will lead to me gauging whether I am right or wrong in actualizing my decisions. Considering the Trolley case, the delays in decision-making might have deleterious effects on all and sundry ergo I will not be able to make the right decision at the time. The second barrier is my belief in positive duties whereby I believe that it is my duty not to harm others regardless of the economic or social value that comes with my actions. This barrier will force me to deliberate over my decisions before acting on them [ CITATION Mar171 \l 1033 ] . There is a high probability that the positive duties will outweigh the negative duties thus I will take the high road and avoid acting.

Your preview ends here

Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version

Access to all documents
Unlimited textbook solutions
24/7 expert homework help

Surname 4 Works Cited Nalce Journal. "Regina v. Dudley and Stephens – Morality influenced Law?" NALCE Journal (2018). Panahi, Omid. Could There Be A Solution To The Trolley Problem? 2022. https://philosophynow.org/issues/116/Could_There_Be_A_Solution_To_The_Trolley_Problem. 2 April 2022. Shwartz, Mark. "Impediments to Proper Ethical Decision Making." 2017.

Write Up 3.edited

Related Documents