When people are talking about dealing with death, how a death comes about, whether die of natural causes, suicide, accident, or murdering, matters a lot. The trolley problem proposed by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1976 gives me an opportunity to make a distinction between cases with similar situations but opposite results. I agree with Judith Jarvis Thomson’s opinion about the trolley problem which was presented in her later paper published in 1985. Thomson (1985) attempts to show that it is morally permissible to divert what will be a threat to many onto a few if this is done in ways which do not themselves constitute violation of stringent rights.
Thomson (1976) shows us several scenarios, and the followings are two of those. The trolley driver …show more content…
Five of his patients need new parts?one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord?but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his patients die.”
The survey in UBC PHIL102 2015/2016 winter session2, most classmates would agree that Charles must not choose to take out the one’s man heart to save the other: he must let his patients die. Thomson (1976) states that one possible solution is that killing is worse than letting die. However, readers must be careful with solution because the following cases and statements provided by Thomson (1976) shows that it cannot fully explain the reason:
“case 1: Alfred hate his wife and wants her dead. He puts cleaning fluid in her coffee, thereby killing her. case 2: Bert hates his wife and wants her dead. She puts cleaning fluid in her coffee (being muddled, thinking it’s cream). Bert happens to have the antidote to cleaning fluid, but he does not give it to her; he lets her
Thomson (1976) shows us several scenarios, and the followings are two of those. The trolley driver …show more content…
Five of his patients need new parts?one needs a heart, the others need, respectively, liver, stomach, spleen, and spinal cord?but all are of the same, relatively rare, blood-type. By chance, David learns of a healthy specimen with that very blood-type. David can take the healthy specimen's parts, killing him, and install them in his patients, saving them. Or he can refrain from taking the healthy specimen's parts, letting his patients die.”
The survey in UBC PHIL102 2015/2016 winter session2, most classmates would agree that Charles must not choose to take out the one’s man heart to save the other: he must let his patients die. Thomson (1976) states that one possible solution is that killing is worse than letting die. However, readers must be careful with solution because the following cases and statements provided by Thomson (1976) shows that it cannot fully explain the reason:
“case 1: Alfred hate his wife and wants her dead. He puts cleaning fluid in her coffee, thereby killing her. case 2: Bert hates his wife and wants her dead. She puts cleaning fluid in her coffee (being muddled, thinking it’s cream). Bert happens to have the antidote to cleaning fluid, but he does not give it to her; he lets her