Set 1: Question and Answers
Question 1: How might one justify flipping the switch in the Trolley case but not pushing the large man off the bridge in the variation?
Answer: Flipping the switch in the first case is justified because the switch operator is acting on the principle of Utilitarianism. By flipping the switch, the operator would save two people toed to the rail track and thus his actions would lead to Greatest Good for the Greatest Number (GHGN). However, in the second case where the switch-operator is faced with the situation of sacrificing the life of the fat man, then he may not be justified in doing so. This can be understood from Kant’s perspective where he believes that right thing to do is course that respects individual rights. Thus the means and the process are as important as the end. Aristotle’s principle of Virtue Ethics can be another explanation for not justifying the action of sacrificing life of the fat man. The action seems totally unjustified when seen from Virtuous Behaviour perspective.
Question 2: “Words of a language are not literally owned by anyone.” How might this bear on the question of the wrongness of plagiarism?
Answer: "Words of a language are not literally owned by anyone" would have a serious implication on the concept of plagiarism. If it is accepted that words are not literally owned by anyone then it would justify plagiarism and thus there would not be any wrong in plagiarising. However, words of a language used in academic writing matter a lot. Words when used to explain a specific concept or theory become the medium of the author to introduce his/ her ideas to the world. When used in this sense, they no longer are to be used freely by anyone as they become the copyright of the author who used them to explain his/ her concept. For example, When Einstein first introduced the general theory of Relativity and produced Relativity Equation, E=mc2, then the theory became so popular that words as "Relativity" became associated with Einstein forever. If anyone wants to improvise on the theory need to acknowledge the theory proposed by Einstein and any plagiarism would become intolerable in the academic and scientific domain. Thus words of a language used to define a theory or concept definitely become copyright of the person proposing the concept and it would be considered plagiarism if these words are used as it is without acknowledging the original scientist or author.
In the former choice, we decide to turn the trolley to save five, but kill one. Warren S. Quinn argues that “if our action is a certain kind of withdrawing of aid, it naturally enough seems to count as negative agency” (Quinn 303). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the lives of five. Actually, we have to kill the life of one, but it seems to be the failure to save one. This decision comes from negative agency. On the other hand, the later choice is decide to allow to kill five, but save one. According to Quinn, “negative agency would include the foreseeably harmful inactions that could not or need not have been avoided” (Quinn 292). The purpose of this choice is not to kill the life of one. The consequence that the lives of five is killed also seems to the failure to save them. This choice also comes from negative agency. In this case, we can’t avoid to sacrifice either the lives of five or the life of one. Moreover, this is the conflict between the agencies which have the same nature. Therefore, we can compare the moral values of the two choices by the amount of the sacrifice. As a result, we are morally permitted to turn the trolley in order to save the lives of five, but kill one in this
The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch
Black Law Dictionary say, “The dictionary defines plagiarism as “The act of appropriating the literary composition of another, or parts or passages of his writings, or the ideas or language of the same, and passing them off as the product of one’s own mind”. (Black). Several things are wrong with plagiarism. We have learned that you have to take ownership of your mistake after committing plagiarism. We learn the procedures and what the consequences are for plagiarism. People can get into serious trouble for plagiarizing someone else’s work.
Singer creates the analogy of a man named Bob, whose prized Bugatti will ensure him a more than comfortable retirement one day. A modification of the infamous trolley problem, the circumstances of the thought experiment require Bob to decide between allowing a child to be killed by a train, or diverting the train so as to instead wreck his luxury car, saving the unknown child from any possible harm. If Bob is to choose his car over the child, it would be considered morally reprehensible. The life of any child is inherently more valuable that the car is. Singer argues that this choice, between allowing innocent children to die and sacrificing luxury items, is a choice that faces almost all Americans every day. He reasons that since many Americans live above poverty and spend excess money on ...
Thought experiments such as The Trolley Problem can help give insight into how people make moral decisions and from there, what they rely on to make the decision. In the first situation of The Trolley Problem, you could pull a switch and kill one person instead of five. Here most people would pull the switch. However, in the second situation you would push someone off of a bridge to stop the trolley before it reached the five other people. In the second situation, even though one person dies to save five, the same as the first situation, more people would consider pushing someone off the bridge to be wrong (Levy). This suggests that we are not utilitarian and are not solely rational in our morals as even though both situations have the same number of deaths to save the same number of lives, one is considered to be more morally
The trolley car experiment is detailed as if you were driving a trolley car that couldn’t stop and you had the choice of running over one worker or five workers, most would pick one person. Most rationalize this because of the idea that the needs of the many trump the needs of the few. Now, imagine you are a bystander, and you see a trolley car racing towards five workers, and you only option is to push a heavy set man in the way to stop the car. Most would not be able to do this. Why? Shouldn’t this be the same situation? The reason people can’t push the man is because he isn’t a part of this situation, and if you introduce him and kill him you are killing an innocent man. One feels true harm instead of the no other option situation. One is actually physically killing a man by pushing the man, instead of a removed sense of pulling a switch. The trolley car theory is an essential part of morality, because it shows how consequences cannot justify actions. People need to assess whether or not the action is moral before assessing the consequences.
...eople become greedy and jealous and will take something from someone. This is where the ethical standpoint of plagiarism is really seen. People today lack good morals and seem to go behind peoples’ backs and take what they want.
Have you ever known someone who plagiarized, either unknowingly or intentionally? Have you? It is very to plagiarize, today in a world of technology. Sadly enough, many people don't even know what it truly is, which can sometimes lead to plagiarizing without knowing it. There are many different ways to plagiarize, but all are wrong and unjust. Whether someone does it unintentionally or deliberately, plagiarism is wrong. Plagiarism should be corrected, fixed, and deleted before any damage is done.
According to the theory of consequentialism, “an action is morally required just because it produces the best overall results” (Landau, 2015, p.121). In this view, an individual’s action is deemed moral only if it produces the optimific result in any situation. In the article “Framing Effect in the Trolley Problem and Footbridge Dilemma,” the authors introduced the “Footbridge Dilemma”, wherein an individual is given the option to save the lives of five workers by pushing an innocent man towards an incoming trolley (Cao, et. al, 2017, p. 90). In this dilemma, consequentialism suggests that it is moral to push the innocent man and save the workers. Even though pushing the man would kill him, the action would yield the optimific outcome in that
The Bystander at the Switch case is a fundamental part of Thomson’s argument in “Trolley Problem.” The basis of her paper is to explain the moral difference between this case, which she deems morally permissible (1398), and the Transplant case, which she deems morally impermissible (1396). In the Bystander at the Switch case, a bystander sees a trolley hurtling towards five workers on the track and has the option of throwing a switch to divert the trolley’s path towards only one worker. Thomson finds the Bystander at the Switch case permissible under two conditions:
In order to properly learn more about plagiarism, it is important to appreciate the process of distribution and creation of ideas in the university. All knowledge is developed from preceding knowledge. As we read, revise, execute, research, and collect perspectives, we are building on other people’s thoughts. While drawing on other peoples thoughts and ideas, we manage to develop our own. In this base therefore, students should not shy away from using the work of others. Instead, they should learn how to avoid plagiarism.
There is a man named Bob, who purchases a Bugatti. One day, he is at a railway and in the distance, he sees a little girl on the train tracks. He has a decision to make; should he flip the switch so the train misses the little girl and hits his truck, or should he allow the train to kill the girl, but his investment is safe because the Bugatti is safe. The premises are one, Bob purchases a nonessential item, a Bugatti. Two, the little girl will not die, as long as the train hits Bob’s Bugatti and not the little girl. Three, Bob’s behavior will be morally unacceptable if he does not flip the switch (Singer 225-226). Singer includes other analogies that follow his main premise and his conclusion always is the same, it is immoral to purchase a nonessential
He presents a few hypothetical stories and one real one to get the students to think this question through. In one of the illustrations used the professor asks how many in the audience would actually push a “fat man” over a bridge onto the tracks below to stop a runaway trolley from killing five workers who were on the tracks in the way of the unstoppable trolley. I was surprised to see that a few hands actually went up. The argument of a student that had raised their hand in hypothetical agreement to pushing the man over the bridge, for the greater good, was that five other lives would be saved for the life of this one. Opposing views, of which whom I agreed with, were that by pushing the “fat man” over the bridge you were actually choosing and making a conscious decision to take a life; who are we to decide whose life is more valuable than
Ethics is the study of moral values and the principles we use to evaluate actions. Ethical concerns can sometimes stand as a barrier to the development of the arts and the natural sciences. They hinder the process of scientific research and the production of art, preventing us from arriving at knowledge. This raises the knowledge issues of: To what extent do moral values confine the production of knowledge in the arts, and to what extent are the ways of achieving scientific development limited due to ethical concerns? The two main ways of knowing used to produce ethical judgements are reason, the power of the mind to form judgements logically , and emotion, our instinctive feelings . I will explore their applications in various ethical controversies in science and arts as well as the implications of morals in these two areas of knowledge.
Plagiarism is defined by UMUC (2006) as “the intentional or unintentional presentation of another person’s idea or product as one’s own. Plagiarism includes but is not limited to the following: copying verbatim all of part of another’s written work; using phrases, charts, figures, illustration, or mathematical or scientific solutions without citing the source; paraphrasing ideas conclusions or research without citing the source in the text and in reference lists; or using all or part of a literary ...