Alex, a train yard worker is faced with a decision no one wants to make. He is witnessing a situation where he sees his five fellow co-workers in the distance working on the train tracks. Alex then notices a roaring train headed straight for the five workers, who our completely oblivious to this act. He discovers a lever that will detour the oncoming train off the track with the five workers but onto another one. Alex then sees a problem with this track, it has lone co-worker on it. Alex should not pull the lever, for a few reasons. Pulling the lever would not only be morally wrong but ethically wrong also. It would be ultimately wrong for Alex to pull the lever. James Rachels the philosopher, who wrote, What is Morality, gives us a couple
…show more content…
allowing harm. One of the classic examples of contrast strategy given by James Rachels entails in the contrast of two cases. In one case John drowns his cousin in the bathtub, and in case two Bill plans to drown his cousin but discovers he is already unconscious under the water and he does nothing to save him. These cases are the exact same but in one case it is just killing and in the other case it is letting someone die. In Alex’s case some could agree with Rachels, and that with Alex not pulling the lever it is just as bad as pulling it because he is allowing people to die. To counter argue this objection we have to answer a few questions on why Alex is not responsible at all. First, Alex did not in intend on the trolley to run down the same tracks as the workers. Secondly, Alex could not prevent this act from happening; also Alex did not make this situation occur. In this case Alex had no idea this situation was going to occur or did he plan on it occurring. If Alex were not there to see this situation, it would have still occurred. By Alex pulling the lever he would just be diverting a pre-existing threat by five to one. Which we have learned by Singer that if we have to sacrifice a live to save another it is morally wrong and we ought not do …show more content…
He has to choose on whether he should pull a lever to redirect a train from hitting five co-workers to another tract which it would hit just one worker. In this situation Alex has to use very careful reasoning to answering his choice. James Rachels simply stated, “The morally right thing to do in any circumstance is whatever there are the best reasons for doing so”. In answering this question he has to bring into consideration that he has to see all of his co-workers as equal and that no one is more important than the other. There would be no good reason for Alex to pull the lever, because in this case both would equal in death, and for him to choose to pull the lever would have him choose who he thought was more important. Peter Singer a philosopher said “If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without there by sacrificing anything else morally significant we ought to morally do it”. For Alex to act upon this situation he would have to sacrifice a life, which would be something of morally significant and by this Peter Singer suggested that it would not be wrong for Alex not to do
allowing harm. One of the classic examples of contrast strategy given by James Rachels entails in the contrast of two cases. In one case John drowns his cousin in the bathtub, and in case two Bill plans to drown his cousin but discovers he is already unconscious under the water and he does nothing to save him. These cases are the exact same but in one case it is just killing and in the other case it is letting someone die. In Alex’s case some could agree with Rachels, and that with Alex not pulling the lever it is just as bad as pulling it because he is allowing people to die. To counter argue this objection we have to answer a few questions on why Alex is not responsible at all. First, Alex did not in intend on the trolley to run down the same tracks as the workers. Secondly, Alex could not prevent this act from happening; also Alex did not make this situation occur. In this case Alex had no idea this situation was going to occur or did he plan on it occurring. If Alex were not there to see this situation, it would have still occurred. By Alex pulling the lever he would just be diverting a pre-existing threat by five to one. Which we have learned by Singer that if we have to sacrifice a live to save another it is morally wrong and we ought not do …show more content…
He has to choose on whether he should pull a lever to redirect a train from hitting five co-workers to another tract which it would hit just one worker. In this situation Alex has to use very careful reasoning to answering his choice. James Rachels simply stated, “The morally right thing to do in any circumstance is whatever there are the best reasons for doing so”. In answering this question he has to bring into consideration that he has to see all of his co-workers as equal and that no one is more important than the other. There would be no good reason for Alex to pull the lever, because in this case both would equal in death, and for him to choose to pull the lever would have him choose who he thought was more important. Peter Singer a philosopher said “If it is in your power to prevent something bad from happening without there by sacrificing anything else morally significant we ought to morally do it”. For Alex to act upon this situation he would have to sacrifice a life, which would be something of morally significant and by this Peter Singer suggested that it would not be wrong for Alex not to do