ethics paper 9
pdf
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Oregon State University, Corvallis *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
205H
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
Pages
4
Uploaded by yasminehassan400
1
Yasmeena Hassan
Ethics
22 November 2023
Navigating Moral Dilemmas Without a Clear Path
The Trolley Problem, a classic ethical dilemma, poses a scenario where one must make a
difficult decision involving the potential harm to others. This paper explores the perspective of
virtue ethics when facing this moral dilemma and subsequently discusses the most serious
objection to a virtue ethics-based approach.
A) What, according to virtue ethics, should you do? Explain.
In the context of virtue ethics, the decision in the Trolley Problem would be approached
based on the cultivation and application of virtuous character traits rather than following strict
rules or focusing solely on consequences.
From a virtue ethics perspective, the action I should take in the Trolley Problem would
align with virtues that contribute to a morally sound character. In this scenario, I consider virtues
such as compassion, benevolence, and the pursuit of overall well-being. Considering these
virtues, I would likely redirect the trolley onto the sidetrack, sacrificing the life of a single
individual to save a greater number.
Virtue ethics emphasizes the importance of developing virtues that guide moral behavior.
By prioritizing the welfare of the larger group, the decision aligns with virtues that foster a
morally good character. This perspective focuses on the intention behind the action and the
2
development of virtuous traits rather than a strict calculation of outcomes or adherence to
predefined rules.
Being in such a situation, I will have no option but to redirect the switch, as I just briefly
stated. Based on personal conviction, I feel that throwing the switch, though it will lead to the
death of an innocent worker, is the right thing to do in such a situation. Utilitarianism dictates
that people should follow moral rules and act in a manner that will have the greatest good for
everyone concerned. In the situation at hand, five men are about to be killed by a runaway
trolley. If I sit back and decide not to act, my action would lead to the death of five men, who
were probably breadwinners in their respective families and save a lone worker. Based on
utilitarianism, my action should have caused more significant harm to many people concerned,
thus unethical.
On the other hand, if I act and redirect a switch, I will divert the trolley, save the lives of
five men, but kill a lone worker at the side tract. My actions would lead to the greatest good for
everyone concerned and harm to only one person. According to utilitarianism, even though I
instigated the murder of an innocent worker, I did what I could have done best, and the
consequences were good, thus justifying my actions.
B) What (again, based on a virtue ethics approach) is the most serious objection to your
answer in A? Explain.
So, one big issue with the virtue ethics angle in tackling the Trolley Problem is that it's
like navigating a maze without a map. You're trying to figure out which virtues should rule the
decision-making process, and it gets messy.
3
Imagine you're all about being kind and helping others (virtues like compassion and
benevolence). In the Trolley Problem, you're faced with this tough call: saving five people by
sacrificing one. That decision fits the whole "greater good" idea, right? But here's the twist – it
clashes with another virtue, the one about not causing harm to someone innocent.
This is where virtue ethics hits a speed bump. No clear rulebook says which virtue
outranks the other or how to balance conflicting virtues in these tricky situations. It's all
subjective and up for interpretation.
Critics argue that this lack of clarity can leave you hanging, unsure which virtue should
take the lead. Everyone has GPS guiding them, but they might end up in different places because
there's no agreed-upon route.
The hitch with virtue ethics in The Trolley Problem is that it's like a moral gray area – no
clear instructions, conflicting virtues, and different folks ending up with other moral choices.
In conclusion, exploring the Trolley Problem through the lens of virtue ethics reveals
both its strengths and limitations. Virtue ethics promotes cultivating virtuous character traits and
emphasizes intentions and moral virtues rather than strict rules or outcomes. However, when
faced with intricate ethical dilemmas like the Trolley Problem, there needs to be a clear
framework for prioritizing conflicting virtues. The subjective nature of interpreting virtues and
the absence of precise guidelines might lead to varying moral conclusions among individuals.
Here's the kicker: how do we deal with conflicting virtues in real-life decisions? Like,
when being kind clashes with causing harm inadvertently. Do you think there's a way we could
set up some more precise guidelines within virtue ethics to handle these tricky situations better,
especially when there's no straightforward "right" answer? I'd love to hear what you think!
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
4