Thomson Trolley Analysis

In Trolley, it is seen as justifiable to turn the lever and kill one to save five lives. The single person’s death is just a foreseen consequence of the actions require to save the lives of the five. However, in Transplant, it is seen as not acceptable to kill and harness the organs of one person to save five lives. Thomson (SG. P132) attempts to explain the essential means test by asking whether their presence is absolutely required to save the five. Her test means that using the patient’s body without their consent in Transplant is a clear example of using the person as a means, whereas Trolley is not. This is troubling as it should imply that les people would use the best consequences option in the Thomson’s loop variant of Trolley, where the track requires at least one person to die. Alas this isn’t the case. …show more content…
The random nature of the positions allows the workers to come to a consensual agreement to switch the tracks as it increases everyone’s probability of survival (SG 136). Assuming that beam fitters (fixed position lone workers) are not included, the workers all consent and it is permissible to pull the lever (SG 29). In contrast, the preference utilitarian understands that whilst killing can frustrate preferences, it isn't intrinsically bad (ST. 17-18). Provided it maximises preference satisfaction, which can be traded off. This means it is permissible for preference utilitarians to pull the lever as frustration of preference by the death of one party can be balanced out saving the lives of the other five (ST