In Thomson’s article titled The Trolley Problem, the author delves into the concept of what is morally permissible by introducing an interesting problem brought initially to life by Philippa Foot, where the reader is compelled to choose between two options. Imagining being the driver of a trolley, with broken brakes and a steep road, the reader must decide whether to save 5 people on the track or turn the trolley and kill one person on the other side. According to Thomson, it is morally permissible to turn the trolley and kill one person instead of five. (Thomson, 1395). However, she introduces another point of view, supposing that the reader is a bystander that happens to be near the switch to change lanes, and the five people on the tracks
…show more content…
It is true that killing 5 evil individuals, who have probably killed many more people before, would be, following our ethics, the right thing to do. However, by voluntarily choosing to kill 5 people because of their evil actions and past killings, it naturally follows that us too are no different from them, as we killed 5 people due to our natural greediness to be recognized as saviors. Let’s consider the case where the 5 people are the mafia members, and the one person is the mafia boss instead. In this case, one could argue that the morally permissible thing (as in, the right thing to do) would be to switch lanes and run over the mafia boss. Nevertheless, by killing the mafia boss we did not end their circle, as a new boss can be chosen among the members, and neither would we if we decided to kill the members instead, as the boss would recruit other members to follow his will. The problem in this argument stands in the belief that a mere bystander can be responsible for choosing one another’s destiny. No one can actually choose whether someone is more worthy of living than
It is true that killing 5 evil individuals, who have probably killed many more people before, would be, following our ethics, the right thing to do. However, by voluntarily choosing to kill 5 people because of their evil actions and past killings, it naturally follows that us too are no different from them, as we killed 5 people due to our natural greediness to be recognized as saviors. Let’s consider the case where the 5 people are the mafia members, and the one person is the mafia boss instead. In this case, one could argue that the morally permissible thing (as in, the right thing to do) would be to switch lanes and run over the mafia boss. Nevertheless, by killing the mafia boss we did not end their circle, as a new boss can be chosen among the members, and neither would we if we decided to kill the members instead, as the boss would recruit other members to follow his will. The problem in this argument stands in the belief that a mere bystander can be responsible for choosing one another’s destiny. No one can actually choose whether someone is more worthy of living than