In order to make a solid ethical decision, one must; “recognize an ethical issue, get the facts, evaluate alternative actions, make a decision, test it, and act and reflect on the outcome” (Velasquez et al. 278). There are several outcomes that could occur based upon what approach is taken, some people believe in choosing the route that will benefit them the most, while some people believe in carrying out what is best for the people around them.
“The Runaway Trolley Car,” depicts the scenario of a trolley car speeding towards a group of 5 people, but someone being a bystander has the choice to “flip a switch which will divert it onto another track, where it will kill one person” (Sokol 269). If the bystander decides to follow through with …show more content…
Hardin talks about a scenario where there are limited seats in a boat, and there are an overabundance of people in the water attempting to persuade the people in the boat to let them join. There are two choices that the “rich” people in the boat can make, either “live by the Christian ideal of being ’our brother’s keeper,’ or by the Marxist ideal of ‘to each according to his needs’” (Hardin 291). Hoffmaster and Hooker analyze how finite agents aid in ultimately decided which approach someone will take. For example, “single parents value both caring for their children and working, but their finitude prevents them from fully satisfying the obligations of both,” which in turn makes them choose one way or the other (Hoffmaster and Hooker). In “The Nature of Moral Compromise: Principles, Values, and Reason,” the talk about how “sometimes we abandon a good because the sacrifices it demands are too great… [and] we adjust our desires and expectations to attain good partially” (Hoffmaster and Hooker). The two outcomes of this situation determines the life and death of the two different groups, there is either an altruistic approach, or a egocentric approach that can be carried
“The Runaway Trolley Car,” depicts the scenario of a trolley car speeding towards a group of 5 people, but someone being a bystander has the choice to “flip a switch which will divert it onto another track, where it will kill one person” (Sokol 269). If the bystander decides to follow through with …show more content…
Hardin talks about a scenario where there are limited seats in a boat, and there are an overabundance of people in the water attempting to persuade the people in the boat to let them join. There are two choices that the “rich” people in the boat can make, either “live by the Christian ideal of being ’our brother’s keeper,’ or by the Marxist ideal of ‘to each according to his needs’” (Hardin 291). Hoffmaster and Hooker analyze how finite agents aid in ultimately decided which approach someone will take. For example, “single parents value both caring for their children and working, but their finitude prevents them from fully satisfying the obligations of both,” which in turn makes them choose one way or the other (Hoffmaster and Hooker). In “The Nature of Moral Compromise: Principles, Values, and Reason,” the talk about how “sometimes we abandon a good because the sacrifices it demands are too great… [and] we adjust our desires and expectations to attain good partially” (Hoffmaster and Hooker). The two outcomes of this situation determines the life and death of the two different groups, there is either an altruistic approach, or a egocentric approach that can be carried