Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Question

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Answer 1

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Students have asked these similar questions

The following lots of Commodity Z were available for sale during the year. Beginning inventory First purchase Second purchase Third purchase 10 units at $30 25 units at $32 30 units at $34 10 units at $35 The firm uses the periodic inventory system, and there are 20 units of the commodity on hand at the end of the year. What is the ending inventory balance of Commodity Z using the weighted average cost method? a. $620 b. $659 c. $690 d. $655

Assume that three identical units of merchandise were purchased during October, as follows: Units Cost Oct. 5 Purchase 1 $ 5 12 Purchase 1 13 28 Purchase 1 15 Total 3 $33 One unit is sold on October 31 for $28. Using the table provided, determine the cost of goods sold using the weighted average cost method. a. $11 b. $17 c. $13 d. $22

Boxwood Company sells blankets for $39 each. The following information was taken from the inventory records during May. The company had no beginning inventory on May 1. Boxwood uses a perpetual inventory system.DateBlanketsUnitsCostMay 3Purchase21$1710Sale8 17Purchase36$1920Sale15 23Sale 30Purchase37$20Determine the gross profit for the sale of May 23 using the FIFO inventory costing method.a. $100b. $221c. $95d.$259

Answer 2

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 3

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 4

Question

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Want to see more full solutions like this?

Subscribe now to access step-by-step solutions to millions of textbook problems written by subject matter experts!

Answer 5

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Answer 6

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.

Answer 7

Chapter 1, Problem 1DQ

To determine

Discuss the ethical issues in the given case.

Answer 8

Expert Solution & Answer

Explanation of Solution

Facts of the case: A runaway trolley threatens to kill five people standing beside a person. In between the five people and the person, stands a railway worker with a large backpack. The person realizes that if the railway worker is pushed onto the trolley tracks, the worker dies, but the bulk of the dead worker and his backpack are sufficient to stop the trolley from ramming over the five persons. It is assumed that there was no time for the person to snatch the backpack from the railway worker, cling on to his back, and jump himself to save the five people.

Ethical dilemma: The ethical dilemma in the given case is whether is it ethical to end one life to save five lives. According to functional Magnetic Resonance Imaging, the intuitions and emotions of a person should be observed before deciding on moral judgments. This case deals with judging about personal violations, considering that whether it is right to end a stranger’s life without his consent.

According to utilitarianism, the benefits of the action are compared rather than the consequences of the action. The act utilitarianism states that the utilities of the action should be examined than the dangers associated with the action. The rule utilitarianism states that the benefits of the action should be in conformity with the general rule of the subject. So, as per act utilitarianism, it is better to kill one person to save the lives of others. But as per rule utilitarianism, it is against the rule to kill a person how much ever benefits are in store.

To conclude no one has a right to kill a person or sacrifice a person’s life to save the life of others. As per the Jewish law, destroying a soul is compared to destroying whole world.