What If You Could Save Five Lives In A Way That Results ✓ Solved

What if you could save five lives in a way that results

Discussion 1: What if you could save five lives in a way that results in the death of a single person? If the overall consequences were the same, would it matter if you were intentionally harming that person or not? This problem is raised by the philosopher Philippa Foot (2002c) in her famous “trolley problem.”

Discussion 2: One way to conceptualize utilitarianism is to hold that the morally required thing to do is to increase the intrinsic good in the world. Trigg is doing just that. But is he going far enough? If one is morally obligated to maximize the good in the world, when should he stop? Should Trigg and the rest of us give all of our income to save the poor - right up to the point of being poor ourselves?

Paper For Above Instructions

The moral dilemmas presented in discussions about utilitarianism, particularly through scenarios like Philippa Foot’s trolley problem, evoke deep ethical considerations. In these scenarios, we often grapple with the consequences of our actions and the implications of morality intertwined with the concept of maximizing good. The trolley problem, which poses the question of whether it is ethical to divert a runaway trolley onto a track where it would kill one person to save five, highlights the tension between consequentialism—the idea that the morality of an action is judged solely by its outcomes—and deontological ethics, which argues that some actions are inherently wrong, regardless of their consequences.

Philippa Foot introduces the fundamental aspects of this dilemma, asking whether it is justifiable to actively harm one for the sake of saving many. If one considers utilitarian frameworks, the answer seems clear: sacrificing one life for five yields a net moral gain. However, the underlying intricacies reveal that moral obligations aren't just about the numbers—they encompass the motivations behind our decisions and the inherent value we place on human life. From a utilitarian perspective, it appears rational to save five lives at the cost of one. Yet, further examination raises critical questions regarding the nature of consent, responsibility, and the essence of moral duty.

Utilitarianism, as a moral philosophy, posits that actions are moral when they contribute to the overall happiness or welfare of the majority. Prominent philosophers like Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill have left an indelible mark on this doctrine, advocating for the maximization of pleasure and minimization of pain. However, critics argue that utilitarianism lacks respect for individual rights and can lead to morally repugnant conclusions, such as justifying the killing of one to save many. Thus, Foot’s trolley problem engages with these challenging nuances of utilitarian ideals, forcing us to confront the discomforting reality that moral decisions can result in harm to individuals.

In the second discussion regarding “Trigg,” a reference to Peter Singer’s famous argument regarding effective altruism, we find ourselves wrestling with the distribution of wealth and our moral obligations to those less fortunate. Singer expounds that individuals in affluent societies have a moral duty to assist those in dire poverty. However, he does not simply suggest aiding others up to the extent that one is still comfortable but rather advocates for giving until reaching a significant personal sacrifice. The question arises: where do we draw the line between altruism and self-preservation? Should we deplete our resources in an effort to maximize good globally? This inquiry echoes larger debates about systemic inequality, social responsibility, and the extent of our moral commitments.

One of the core challenges in both discussions is the inherent difficulty in measuring and comparing lives. The reductionist approach of numbers implies a mathematical assessment of value that fails to encapsulate the richness of human existence and individual agency. Can we ethically weigh an individual life against another, or do we risk losing the unique essence of that life in the process? This becomes particularly pertinent when discussing global poverty, as the question of giving all income to save lives pushes us to confront our complicity in systemic injustices.

Furthermore, the concept of moral obligation is pivotal in exploring both discussions. If we adopt a consequentialist view, one might argue for a continuous cycle of giving, resulting in personal financial strain while benefiting many others. However, is there not a moral imperative to cultivate one's own well-being and happiness in tandem with altruistic endeavors? The pursuit of the common good does not inherently necessitate the relinquishment of self-care or personal sustainability. This balance between self-interest and the welfare of others serves as a crucial junction in our moral considerations.

In conclusion, the discussions raised invite profound engagements with utilitarianism, individual rights, moral agency, and the essence of human value. By considering scenarios such as the trolley problem and the moral obligations of individuals like Trigg, we confront the complexity of our ethical frameworks. The necessity to maximize good cannot come at any cost; instead, it requires us to navigate the intricate landscape of morality with care. Ethical decision-making entails understanding the ramifications of our choices on both personal and societal levels. While the desire to save lives is laudable, the approach we take in pursuing that objective must retain respect for individuals and the moral principles that govern human dignity.

References

• Foot, P. (2002c). The problem of abortion and the doctrine of the double effect. In Virtues and Vices.
• Bentham, J. (1789). An Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation.
• Mill, J. S. (1863). Utilitarianism.
• Singer, P. (1975). Animal Liberation.
• Singer, P. (2009). The Life You Can Save: Acting Now to End World Poverty.
• Rawls, J. (1971). A Theory of Justice.
• Hare, R. M. (1981). Moral Thinking: Its Levels, Method, and Point.
• Parfit, D. (1984). Reasons and Persons.
• Smart, J. J. C., & Williams, B. (1973). Utilitarianism: For and Against.
• Walzer, M. (1983). Spheres of Justice: A Defense of Pluralism and Equality.