Essay on Analyzing Thomson 's Account Of When Killing
The question of whether ever morally permissible to kill in self-defence is difficult as there can be so many combinations. In this article I am limiting the discussion to where your actions, which are the only way to save your life, result in one other person dying. Thompson in her article on self-defence, supports the general notion that most people feel in that if you are innocent then you are morally correct in defending yourself against an aggressor. Her argument separates the person who will die into groups of aggressor, innocent aggressor and bystander, then attempts to explain why killing some is morally acceptable and others not. Otsuka extends the argument by shortening the list to only killing the aggressor as morally permissible. I felt that there was something wrong with both arguments as they clashed with my intuition, especially the trolley problem which is the one I will tackle in this discussion paper.
I also will use an approach that from my engineering background calls a black box, and see if that solves my moral dilemma. In engineering we often tackle a problem by firstly setting bounds to the inputs such that they don’t effect the results, this would be where we know an input causes problems (for example an over voltage that would destroy the circuit being tested). Then secondly by just looking at the inputs and outputs and ignoring…