LIBS 7008 - ODA 1
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
University of British Columbia *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MATH 224
Subject
Philosophy
Date
Dec 6, 2023
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by vishal0676
ODA 1: “The Trolley Problem”
Vishal Kanda
must consist of a minimum of 350 words (references not included)
Provide citations for any info obtained from outside sources
Use APA format (in-text and end note citations)
Subject Heading: ODA 1, Vishal Kanda
Task:
In light of the situations presented above and what you have learned so far about the importance of
reasons in the development of arguments, form and defend a position with respect to the following
questions:
1.
Would you pull the hand lever and switch the tracks of the trolley in the situation described in
Scenario I, accepting all moral responsibility for this act? Why or why not?
Argument: Do not pull the lever and let five people die, to save one
2.
Would you push the “large man” to stop the trolley in the situation described in Scenario II,
accepting all moral responsibility for this act? Why or why not?
Argument: Do nothing and let the five people die, to save one
3. Is there any moral difference between the two scenarios? Explain and defend your answer.
Scenario One – either do nothing and let the trolley collide with the steel barricade and five people die,
or pull the hand lever to switch the tracks, where one unaware person would die.
Scenario Two – (no auxiliary track) either do nothing and let the trolley collide with the steel barricade
and five people die, or push an unaware large man in front of the trolley to stop the train, but it will kill
the man.
1.
In scenario 1, I would not pull the hand lever to switch the tracks, thereby contributing to the
death of five people, instead of one. My moral justification to harm an innocent man, who is
unaware of his demise, versus those knowing of their demise, would be unjust, therefore doing
nothing would be the scenario in which I would have fewer moral repercussions. In this scenario,
there will be moral repercussions felt throughout the remainder of my life regardless of the
decision, however I do believe that everyone has their own destiny, thus it allows me to accept
the moral responsibility that comes with the trolley colliding with the steel barricade.
2.
In scenario 2, I would not push the man in front of the trolley to prevent the death of five
people. In this scenario, physically pushing a man in front of the train, would be considered an
act of homicide in my moral reasoning, thus no action would be the best possible scenario to
reduce moral repercussions. Again, following my principles, giving myself the choice to justify
one’s death over another is morally wrong, as each person has their own destiny, dictated by
their own actions, and events that surround them.
3.
I think there is no moral differences between my answer to both questions. Destiny was the
cause of all five of those individuals to be on the train, and their demise was the ultimate result
of a sequence of unfortunate events. In both scenarios, if either of my actions of pulling the
lever, or pushing the man would be the direct result for an individual’s demise, it would oppose
my morality. As humans, we tend to seek the best possible scenario, and the “happy” ending is
an outcome that deeply resonates with people, thus the immediate response would be to save
everyone, however seeking to justify harm to an innocent individual to save five others, would
not be morally correct. “Morality regulates human behavior. Moral norms provide guidance,
predictability, and coordination.” (Malle et al. 2015) My morals of not providing intentional harm
to any individual is a valid enough reason to justify the actions that I would take. The dilemma
posed in “The Trolley Problem,” can be viewed in many ways, however it all comes down to the
ethical values and norms of the individual, it may be fair to say that saving five people over one,
would be the right thing to do, however, in these scenarios, it goes against my principles, and the
right thing to do would be to allow destiny to take its course.
Reference List:
B. F. Malle, M. Scheutz, T. Arnold, J. Voiklis and C. Cusimano, "Sacrifice One For the Good of Many?
People Apply Different Moral Norms to Human and Robot Agents," 2015 10th ACM/IEEE International
Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI), Portland, OR, USA, 2015, pp. 117-124.
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