Solving the Trolley Driver and the Transplant Cases

717 Words2 Pages
bulb-icon

Recommended: Social responsibility as an individual

The “Trolley Driver” case and the “Transplant” case are very similar: if we choose to intervene, only one individual will die, whereas, if we do not intervene, five individuals will die. Therefore, in both cases we are given the option to save the lives of five people at the price of one person’s. Both cases also try to explore the notion of “moral permission.” Although both cases are similar structurally, the context of the cases differs significantly. In the Trolley Driver case it is morally permissible to turn the trolley onto the one person, killing him and saving the five. However, in the Transplant case it is not morally permissible to take the one person’s organs to save the five people. Therefore, why is it that we are permitted to intervene in the Trolley Driver case, whereas, we are not permitted to intervene in the Transplant case? What are the moral differences between these two cases? In order to solve this puzzle, first we have to clearly distinguish the different notions of “killing” and “letting die.” Killing is an act of causing the death of a person which we are directly responsible for. Letting die is an omission to prevent the death of a person which we are not directly responsible for. Moreover, it matters on how we perceive the cause of the death, whether it is because of natural causes or unnatural causes such as in the hand of others. Unnatural causes of death are regarded as killing, whereas natural causes of death can be regarded as letting die. Second, on our proposal, we have to reinforce the idea that killing is much worse than letting die. In the Trolley Driver case, both of our actions: whether we turn the trolley onto the one person or let it hit the five people, are regarded as killing because th... ... middle of paper ... ...he price of one person’s. In the Withholding Treatment case, both of our actions: whether we withhold the treatment of the one person in order to save the people or cure the one person and let the five people die, are considered as letting die because their deaths are something we failed to prevent and are not something we are directly responsible for as they are due to natural causes. Therefore, in this case, we are to choose between letting one die and letting five die. Although it seems that it is better for us to choose letting the one person die as it results in less death, it is morally impermissible to do that because in order to do so we have to withhold the treatment of the one person, letting him die when he is the one that should be saved. Additionally, our proposal is unable to solve this problem because we are only to choose between letting die.

Show More
Related

  • Organs Sales Will Save Lives Rhetorical Analysis

    710 Words  | 2 Pages

    It is said that “Some agree with Pope John Paul II that the selling of organs is morally wrong and violates “the dignity of the human person” (qtd. In Finkel 26), but this is a belief professed by healthy and affluent individuals” (158). MacKay is using ethos the show the morality of those that believe it is wrong for organ sales. The morals shown are those of people who have yet to experience a situation of needing a new organ. Having a healthy and wealthy lifestyle, they cannot relate to those that have trouble with money and a unhealthy lifestyle as the poor. The poor and the middle class are the ones that suffer being last on the list for a transplant, thus have different ethics. Paying an absurd amount of money and still having to be at the bottom of the list for a transplant, is something no person anywhere in the world should have to

    Read More

  • Trolley Case Study

    1060 Words  | 3 Pages

    Quinn mentions two rights: negative and positive. At the first, “Negative rights are claim rights against harmful intervention, interference, assault, aggression, etc” (Quinn 306). “Positive rights, on the other hand, are claim rights to aid or support” (Quinn 306). Negative agency comes from negative rights and positive agency comes from positive rights. It means that in “Transplant” the positive rights of five people to be saved by transplanting the organs compare with the negative rights of one healthy person not to be killed by harvesting organs. In general, negative rights are morally stronger than positive rights. The reason is that negative rights strongly connects with the moral sense in which our life is ours. It doesn’t mean that positive rights are not important, but negative rights are essential to our general moral sense more than positive rights. Therefore, we are not permitted to harvest the organs of one healthy person in order to save the lives of five because this choice comes from positive

    Read More

  • It's Time to Regulate and Reform Euthanasia and Assisted Suicide

    1288 Words  | 3 Pages

    patient's life is much more merciful than allowing him or her to die a slow

    Read More

  • The Moral Analysis Of Peter Singer's The Great Train Dilemma

    1280 Words  | 3 Pages

    In the story the “train switch dilemma” a single train car is rushing toward a group of five unknowing workers who cannot hear the train approaching. Another train worker, who we will call Alex is working at his summer job, he sees the train headed for the five unknowing workers. Alex notices a rail switch lever which if pulled will divert the train unto a different track, however, if Alex pulls the rail switch lever he sees that it will divert the train to a track with one lone worker surly killing the one standing alone. The rail switch lever presents the following dilemma, do nothing and the train continues on its path towards the five, or pull the rail switch lever and send the train towards the one person. In this essay I will show why Alex should not pull the rail switch lever and doing so would be morally wrong. Making a choice that results in the intentional killing of someone and ignoring his or her value would be

    Read More

  • The Problem Debate: The Trolly Car Problem

    1368 Words  | 3 Pages

    The ‘Trolley Car Problem’ has sparked heated debates amongst numerous philosophical and jurisprudential minds for centuries. The ‘Trolley Car’ debate challenges one’s pre-conceived conceptions about morals, ethics and the intertwined relationship between law and morality. Many jurisprudential thinkers have thoroughly engaged with this debate and have consequentially put forward various ideologies in an attempt to answer the aforementioned problem. The purpose of this paper is to substantiate why the act of saving the young, innocent girl and resultantly killing the five prisoners is morally permissible. In justifying this choice, this paper will, first, broadly delve into the doctrine of utilitarianism, and more specifically focus on a branch

    Read More

  • Kantian Ethics and Autonomous Vehicle Programming

    681 Words  | 2 Pages

    Opposing ethical principles would program the vehicle in different ways. Immanuel Kant piloted the nonconsequentialist ethical view of morals. If Kant programmed the car, he would not change the car’s intended path to save multiple people because doing so would use other humans as means to an end. Kantian Ethics are based off of categorical imperatives. Put simply, “an action is right only if the agent would be willing to be so treated if the position of the parties were reversed” (Eby 1). Swerving to hit another person would be deciding that person’s fate, without consent, in order to save the larger group. This is not ethically justified by Kantian standards. Therefore, if the car was intended to veer towards the large group, it should continue on that trajectory. Additionally, there is still the possibility of the ten people moving out of the way in time or the breaks of the car could react fast enough to prevent an accident. Why should the car take the life of a bystander given those possibilities? A proponent of Kantian Ethics would advise the car to continue on its path but would enable the breaks.

    Read More

  • What does Utilitarianism Has to do with a Surgeon

    1551 Words  | 4 Pages

    The case under study is of the surgeon who has to decide killing of a normal, but unjust person for the sake of saving five sick people. An act utilitarian in this case would be considering every probable consequences of sacrificing the sixth normal patient while on the other hand, a rule utilitarian will possibly look for the consequences associated with performing such an operation every time a situation like thos would arise. One of the potential rules would claim that: whenever any surgeon can kill one healthy person for the basic purpose of transplanting his organs to save more than one person who actually needs them, then he can surely do it.

    Read More

  • Organ Donation -Saving Lives

    1045 Words  | 3 Pages

    According to United Network for Organ Sharing (2010) organ donations and transplantation are the removal of organs and tissues from one person and placed into another person’s body. The need for organ transplantation usually occurs when the recipient organ has failed (UNOS, 2010). Organ donation can save the lives of many individuals who are on the waiting list for an organ donation. Becoming an organ donor can be a difficult decision. Many people have the false beliefs about being an organ donor. An example would be if organ donor is on their driver’s license and a person is in a life-threatening accident everything will not be done to save their life. There is an increase need for organ donors and unfortunately the need for organ transplantation exceeds the amount of organs available. This causes the difficult decision of deciding who deserves the transplantation over another client. Which person deserves the opportunity of having the second chance of life with a newly transplanted organ? The case study, “Who will receive the liver?” involves to potential clients Mr. Mann and Mrs. Bay. Mr. Mann a fifty year old drinker who will soon die with alcoholic cirrhosis, he lives alone, and makes no guarantee he will stop drinking even if he does receive an organ donation. The second candidate, Mrs. Bay a thirty-seven year old with hepatitis B who has some sick days is married with a young family and is very active in the community. Mrs. Bay is ahead of Mr. Mann on the donation waiting list (Butts & Rich, 2008, p.305). The purpose of this paper is to view the difference between each candidate and decide which recipient should receive the liver transplant.

    Read More

  • Argumentative Essay On Physician Assisted Suicide

    1130 Words  | 3 Pages

    Critics to the idea of providing dying patients with lethal doses, fear that people will use this type those and kill others, “lack of supervision over the use of lethal drugs…risk that the drugs might be used for some other purpose”(Young 45). Young explains that another debate that has been going on within this issue is the distinction between killings patients and allowing them die. What people don’t understand is that it is not considered killing a patient if it’s the option they wished for. “If a dying patient requests help with dying because… he is … in intolerable burden, he should be benefited by a physician assisting him to die”(Young 119). Patients who are suffering from diseases that have no cure should be given the option to decide the timing and manner of their own death. Young explains that patients who are unlikely to benefit from the discovery of a cure, or with incurable medical conditions are individuals who should have access to either euthanasia or assisted suicide. Advocates agreeing to this method do understand that choosing death is a very serious matter, which is why it should not be settled in a moment. Therefore, if a patient and physician agree that a life must end and it has been discussed, and agreed, young concludes, “ if a patient asks his physician to end his life, that constitutes a request for

    Read More

  • Essay On Killing And Killing

    1232 Words  | 3 Pages

    In this paper, I will argue that killing is better than letting die if, in general, the intention is compassion rather than gratification. In other words, it is morally permissible to deliberately take action that results in another’s death if the motivation is out of compassion rather than gratification, and that this is significantly better than deliberately failing to take steps which are available and which would have saved another’s life – merely allowing someone to die.(definitions –cite NESBITT) ................

    Read More

  • Physician Assisted Suicide

    993 Words  | 2 Pages

    As medical procedures and techniques have become more advanced, doctors are able to do much more to try and save a patient's life (Warriach). In some cases, however, this process is only delaying the inevitable and causing the patient even more suffering. If euthanasia were legal, patients could willingly choose to end this long process of torment, specifically in terminal cases where both would lead to the same result: death. In a hospital, a patient's life gets dragged on despite the condition by medical tools and devices such as respirators (Warriach). The only way to cease the patient’s anguish is by ending all means of life support. If euthanasia were presented as an option, it would save the patient, along with their family, from immense pain and

    Read More

  • Persuasive Essay On Assisted Suicide

    1607 Words  | 4 Pages

    The debate over whose decision it is to uphold a human life is one with a vast range of opinions. Some believe it should be up to God, whereas others assert that it is the right of an individual; however, the ultimate verdict rests in the hands of the government. When tragedy leaves a victim in critical condition with no assurance of recovery, circumstances do not allow for a straightforward action plan. In any state of affairs, it is optimal to continue the life of a patient, even if it seems as though the ideal solution is death. Medical practitioners, relatives, and patients themselves do not deserve the pressure to decide this grave fate. The choice between life and death should not exist. Every human is entitled to the right to live, and

    Read More

  • Consequentialism Vs. Rule-Utilitarianism

    1292 Words  | 3 Pages

    Consequentialism sets out to prove that one’s actions are morally right just because they produce the greatest amount of possibly goodness in the world. Consequentialism has two forms; one being act-utilitarianism, and the second one being rule-utilitarianism. In this paper I will explain the difference between the two forms, and will also apply these two forms to the same given scenario, and describe how the act-utilitarian will select the male patient, while the rule-utilitarian will select the female patient.

    Read More

  • John Harris Experiment Of The Survival Lottery

    721 Words  | 2 Pages

    The goal of this paper is to examine John Harris’ experiment of the “Survival Lottery.” Specifically, I want to argue that the lottery makes too high a demand on us to give up our lives. Especially, when I’m pretty sure everyone wants to live. Prior accounts show that Harris proposes that if the argument of the distinction between “killing” and “letting die” is properly contrived, then killing one person to save two could happen on a regular basis. It would be an exception to the obligation not to kill innocent people in regards to the argument that there is a distinction between "killing" and "letting die.” The difference between killing and letting die presents a moral difference. As far as this argument we are obligated not to kill. I

    Read More

  • The Trolley Problem, by Judith Jarvis Thomson

    756 Words  | 2 Pages

    The Bystander at the Switch case is a fundamental part of Thomson’s argument in “Trolley Problem.” The basis of her paper is to explain the moral difference between this case, which she deems morally permissible (1398), and the Transplant case, which she deems morally impermissible (1396). In the Bystander at the Switch case, a bystander sees a trolley hurtling towards five workers on the track and has the option of throwing a switch to divert the trolley’s path towards only one worker. Thomson finds the Bystander at the Switch case permissible under two conditions:

    Read More

More about Solving the Trolley Driver and the Transplant Cases

Open Document