In “Killing, Letting Die, and the Trolley Problem,” Judith Thomson confronts the moral dilemma of how death comes about, whether one meets their demise through natural causes or by the hands of another (Shafer-Landau 544). If one does in fact lose their life through the action or inaction of another person, a second dilemma must also be considered. Does it matter whether a person was killed or simply allowed to die? The moral debate that arises from these issues is important because if forms opinions that ultimately sets the tone for what is socially acceptable behavior. Social issue such as legalization of euthanasia, abortions, and the distribution of medical resources all hinge on the “killing vs letting die problem”. Thomson describes her perplexity with the “killing vs. letting die problem” by engaging the reader with a scenario that clearly illustrates how killing and letting die are both on par with each other. Thomson also encourages the reader to …show more content…
consider scenarios that favor the act of killing over letting die and vice versa. Thomson depicts how killing and letting die can be on the same playing field through the illustration of two men who both desire the death of their wives. One husband taking matters into his own hands poisons his wife to achieve his goal. Husband number two accidently poisons his wife. Husband number two has the antidote to the poison and is in a position to safe his wife’s life and yet chooses to let her die. Clearly, both men are equally responsible for the untimely demise of the wives. The fact that one man actually killed his wife and the other let her die bears no weight, in this situation both men are equally wrong. Thus, killing is no worse than letting die (at least in this scenario). Thomson further validates her perplexity with the “killing vs. letting die problem” by offering the reader a glimpse into the dubious nature of the issue. Thomson presents a scenario where a doctor has the choice of killing a patient in order to harvest their organs to save the lives of five other patients. The doctor is faced with the choice of killing a patient or letting five patients die. Most people would agree that the doctor has no right to kill one to save five. At this point the reader may be as perplexed as Thomson concerning the “killing vs. letting die problem”. How can killing be equal to letting die as presented in the first scenario while simultaneously letting die be the morally superior decision as presented in the second scenario? Thomson attempts to dispel all confusion by considering the theory of philosopher Philipa Foot. Foot offers her own scenario referred to as the “trolley problem”. Foot’s scenario depicts a trolley conductor who is operating a trolley with faulty brakes. Ahead of him are five people that are on the trolley tracks with no means to avoid being hit by the trolley. The conductor has the option to save the five by switching tracks, however there is one person on the second set of tracks who would be killed if the conductor does in fact switch tracks. Morally speaking, if killing is worse than letting the conductor must allow the trolley to remain on its current course thereby killing the five. Conversely, if letting die is worse the conductor must make the decision to kill the one person on the alternate track. In order to solve this dilemma Thomson considers Foot’s solution based on negative and positive duties. An example of a negative duty can be described as the obligation to refrain from killing or causing undo harm. An example of a positive duty can be described as an obligation to save a life. Honoring a negative duty is held in higher regard that honoring a positive duty. This position is legitimized if with we recall the scenario where the doctor is faces with the dilemma of killing one to save five. Intuitively, the morally correct action would be for the doctor to let the five patients die. This is because the doctors obligation to not kill or do undo harm (his negative duty) out weights his obligation to save the five patients. The trolley conductor is faced with a completely different decision. He/She must decide between two negative duties, killing five versus killing one. If we hold to Foot’s explanation of positive and negative duties it is permissible for the driver to switch tracks, thereby opting to do less harm by killing one instead of five. While Thomson does appreciate Foot’s unpacking of the “killing versus letting die problem” she feels further unpacking is required in order draw out the most moral action.
Thomson goes on to present several scenarios that show how negative and positive duties cannot be the final assessment as to the morally of an action. In one such scenario Thomson hypothesizes that the five people on the track are workers who have full knowledge of the dangers their job presents and are paid hazard pay as compensation. In this scenario the second track has been out of service for years and the one person one the tracks was invited and had their safety guaranteed by the Mayor who just so happened to be the trolley conductor. In this situation it is clear that negative and positive duties hold no bearing, the conductor is obligated by his own word to kill the five. In addition, the five workers have no special claim over the one person against being killed because they are fully aware of the possibly that they can die at
work. Thomson goes through trouble of outlining multiple opposing scenarios in order to prove her position that the problem of “killing versus letting die” has no definitive or mechanical method capable of yielding conclusions as to the morality of euthanasia, abortion, and the distribution of scarce medical supplies. Thomson asserts that each case must be considered individually, her scenarios remind that reader that moral correctness is often contingent upon unique circumstance. Thomson solution is more than adequate, it is a forgiving and flexible position that accounts for uncertainties of life. Thomson reassures the reader that the morality of a person’s actions must consider based upon a full analyze of the events leading up to the action in addition to the persons intentions for performing said action.
In his second premise Marquis expands on the idea that the killing of an adult human is a serious moral wrong because by killing them you deprive them of future experiences. He believes that by killing someone you cause “the greatest possible losses on the victim” and supports this idea with the example of terminally ill patients who feel their they are being robbed because their premature death prevents them from enjoying their future (190). Additionally, Marquis challenges the idea that killing someone simply because they are biologically human with the example of intelligent aliens (191).
The mother-son case illustrates that there are more factors in play than just the two that Thomson presents in her thesis. Thomson’s conditions by themselves cannot explain every situation. The relationship between the people involved can also affect whether a decision is morally permissible or not. If that relationship entails that one person is emotionally bound and ethically responsible for the security and well-being of the other, the first cannot knowingly contribute to the death of the second. Thomson’s thesis must be modified to include this condition as well.
Death is one of life’s most mysterious occurrences. It is sometimes difficult to comprehend why an innocent young child has to die, and a murderer is released from prison and gets a second chance at life. There is no simple explanation for this. Though, perhaps the best, would be the theological perspective that God has a prewritten destiny for every man and woman. In J.D. Salinger’s
The issue at hand is whether physician-assisted suicide should be legalized for patients who are terminally ill and/or enduring prolonged suffering. In this debate, the choice of terms is central. The most common term, euthanasia, comes from the Greek words meaning "good death." Sidney Hook calls it "voluntary euthanasia," and Daniel C. Maguire calls it "death by choice," but John Leo calls it "cozy little homicides." Eileen Doyle points out the dangers of a popular term, "quality-of-life." The choice of terms may serve to conceal, or to enhance, the basic fact that euthanasia ends a human life. Different authors choose different terms, depending on which side of the issue they are defending.
...ow point drives him to consider death as an alternative to suffering. This chapter helps to highlight some present day themes about the ethical issues of euthanasia such as the difference between active and passive euthanasia. Also whether or not a medical professional should assist in the process and under what circumstances. Discussion about euthanasia will probably continue in the future. This character brings some of the issues to light.
Thomson’s argument is presented in three components. The first section deals with the now famous violinist thought experiment. This experiment presents a situation in which you wake up one morning and discover you have been kidnapped and hooked up to an ailing violinist so that his body would have the use of your kidneys for the next nine months. The intuitive and instinctive reaction to this situation is that you have no moral duty to remain hooked up to the violinist, and more, that he (or the people who kidnapped you) does not have the right to demand the use of your body for this period. From a deontological point of view, it can be seen that in a conflict between the right of life of the fetus and the right to bodily integrity of the mother, the mother’s rights will trump those of the fetus. Thomson distills this by saying “the right to life consists not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly”.
The idea that people have free will, and use it to make decisions about themselves in their own best interest can go on to create a slippery-slope mentality - Because we executed one murderer, we can execute every murderer, no matter their reasoning! Singer’s article focuses on classic hedonistic utilitarianism, and questions why patients are not given the option for assisted suicide in some states and countries. His question is a double-edged sword for the philosophy; ending the ability to let an individual think freely is irrational, yet taking away someone’s autonomy is just as bad. The struggle of doing what one ought to do, while strengthening the utility of the action, with respect to the law and strengthening the law’s utility, comes with a price.... ...
I'm not afraid of being dead. I'm just afraid of what you might have to go through to get there” (Pamela Bone). The sense of dying or losing a loved one is a conception that has plagued any family member at some time or another. How will one deal with the struggle of burying their loved one, the bills, and not waking up and seeing them or calling them every day? More so, will that person be in the pain when they leave their physical form? Euthanasia, or assisted suicide, gives a person the chance the take the ending of their life into their own hands and make, an otherwise undefined, decision of how he/she would want their final moments to be. In this paper I plan to display that based on the utilitarian perspective, Rachels’ writings, and contemplating human rights constructed from a governmental outlook, that euthanasia is just and morally acceptable and should be considered in a reasonable means of expiry when an entity is plagued with chronic mental, emotional, or physical pain.
As the years go by our society advances in all fields. As a result, we as a society have come to question many elements in our lives by comparing them to longstanding morals and traditions. The medical fields has always, and probably will always, raise many controversial issues. The latest concerns whether euthanasia or physician assisted suicide should be universally legalized in the U.S. Those opposed see that there are other alternatives other than taking a person’s own life, with the help of a doctor. Not only are they essential to incorporate into the options for people experiencing terminal illnesses, legalization would allow an overall upgrade in combating abuse with this treatment, at the same time, people are thoroughly against the
Thomas Nagel begins his collection of essays with a most intriguing discussion about death. Death being one of the most obviously important subjects of contemplation, Nagel takes an interesting approach as he tries to define the truth as to whether death is, or is not, a harm for that individual. Nagel does a brilliant job in attacking this issue from all sides and viewpoints, and it only makes sense that he does it this way in order to make his own observations more credible.
Sloan, I. The Right to Die: Legal and Ethical Problems. London: Oceana Publications, Inc. 1988.
He conforms with political figure Ross Beaton’s worries as to the fall of right-to-die laws, and gives an alternate, arguably more realistic, standpoint to the presence of family members in a time of dying. He also connects to the reader on an emotional level by giving examples of certain circumstances. This process of emotional stimulant is intrinsic to the strength of his argument and the development of his writing. Watt’s analysis focusing on the moral aspects of the subject is visible in the other authors’ assertions making his the most powerful and agreeable.
The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I
Judith Wright's poem `The Killer' explores the relationship between Humans and Nature, and provides an insight into the primitive instincts which characterize both the speaker and the subject. These aspects of the poem find expression in the irony of the title and are also underlined by the various technical devices employed by the poet.
Today, medical interventions have made it possible to save or prolong lives, but should the process of dying be left to nature? (Brogden, 2001). Phrases such as, “killing is always considered murder,” and “while life is present, so is hope” are not enough to contract with the present medical knowledge in the Canadian health care system, which is proficient of giving injured patients a chance to live, which in the past would not have been possible (Brogden, 2001). According to Brogden, a number of economic and ethical questions arise concerning the increasing elderly population. This is the reason why the Canadian society ought to endeavor to come to a decision on what is right and ethical when it comes to facing death. Uhlmann (1998) mentions that individuals’ attitudes towards euthanasia differ. From a utilitarianism point of view – holding that an action is judged as good or bad in relation to the consequence, outcome, or end result that is derived from it, and people choosing actions that will, in a given circumstance, increase the overall good (Lum, 2010) - euthanasia could become a means of health care cost containment, and also, with specific safeguards and in certain circumstances the taking of a human life is merciful and that all of us are entitled to end our lives when we see fit.