philosophy 9:38 PM a elearn.uta.edu l T-Mobile LTE 57% -\" + 16. Provide an exam
ID: 3525658 • Letter: P
Question
philosophy 9:38 PM a elearn.uta.edu l T-Mobile LTE 57% -" + 16. Provide an example that makes it seem that the Doctrine of Double Effect is not morally important. 17. Explain the initial trolley case. 18. Why does it initially seem that people's response to the first two trolley cases is mistaken. 19. What is most likely causing the difference in response in the first two cases. 20. Why does the Doctrine of Double Effect claim that people should respond the way they typically do to the first two cases (explain why the cases are not really alike according to the DDE) 21. Provide an example of something that is morally wrong but should not be illegal. 22. Provide an example of something that ought to be illegal but is not morally wrong. 23. What does it mean to be supererogatory? 24. Which author assumes (without argument) that a fetus has the same right to life as we do? (Our pro-life or our pro- choice author) 25. What is an example of a person that is not human. 26. What is an example of a human that is not a person 27. Is a fetus alive? A human? A person? 28. Explain Thomson's first violinist case. 29. What types of abortion was Thomson concerned with in the initial violinist case? 30. How does Thomson's first violinist case show that the standard argument for pro-life fails (even if it fails to 31. How can Thomson's violinist case be modified to fit more 32. What is challenging about allowing an exception for 33. What is challenging about allowing an exception for 34. Why can't the wrongness of killing come from the harm 35. What makes the account that the wrongness of killing 36. Why can't the wrongness of killing come from harm to 37. Why can't the wrongness of killing come from pairn establish pro-choice for anything except rape cases) standard cases of abortion? abortion in cases of rape? abortion in cases where the mother's life is in danger? done to the killer? comes from harm to the killer appealing? loved ones? caused to the victim? 38. What does Marquis think makes it wrong to kill us? 39. How do we know that a fetus has a FLO? 40. How does Marquis attempt to prevent his account from leading to the consequence that contraception is wrong?Explanation / Answer
17.In the trolley case, imagine you are driving a trolley on its track. When you look ahead, you see that it splits into two ways: right or left. The right track has five construction workers working on it and have not noticed the oncoming trolley. You have no way of signalling them to move out of the way. On the other side, the left track has only one construction worker. The single worker also does not see the trolley and you have no way of warning the individual. You are left with two options. You can decide to let the trolley continue down the right track. This would lead to the death of the five construction workers. Or, you can press the button to move the train to the left track, which would only kill one construction worker. While this is a tough situation to be placed in, many people would say that the obvious answer is to press the button and save the five construction workers with the idea that five lives are more valuable than just one. A similiar situation to this,is the bystander problem. Imagine you are watching the trolley travel down the track that is about to turn right, and hit five construction workers. You notice that the conductor tried to stop the trolley, failed, and consequently passed out from horror and embarrassment for the lack of intelligence to honk the horn. To your right, there is a switch box that allows you to change the path of the trolley to the left, which would kill only one construction worker. You now are given the option of throwing the switch to move the trolley to the left, killing just the one worker, or simply not doing anything and letting the five construction workers die. The question becomes whether you are morally responsible to intervene, and whether your choice is morally permissible. Most people would say you are morally obligated to intervene, and save the lives of the five workers, or the greater number of individuals. It would, in fact, be morally impermissible for you not to act in that situation. I believe that there is a big difference between letting someone die and killing someone. If you had not been the bystander, those five individuals would have died from the trolley. This would not have been your fault. But, by intervening and changing the course of events that would have taken place, the death of that one person would be your fault. This is because letting someone die is wrong, but you didn’t choose to kill them. You chose to let the natural course of things play out. In the trolley case, I would have let the laws of natural selection make the choice and kill the construction workers who were not paying attention. There are five individuals on the track. This means there are ten eyes and ten ears that could have seen the trolley coming down the track. The one person in the left track is probably a hard worker because he was working alone, so I wouldn’t choose to kill him simply because he’s a loner. Thus, I would rather the five individuals be killed because they were too busy being dependent on each other. After those five die, I would use their organs to make the transplant to the individuals. That way, the perfectly healthy individual can live a normal life, and the five patients can live. The trolley case brings attention to the idea that almost everyone agrees that saving the greatest number of people is morally permissible and you must always save the greatest number. Due to time limit,remaining questions can be asked as another question,they will be answered,thankyou for your cooperation
Related Questions
Navigate
Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.