Thomsons Argument Of The Trolley Problem Philosophy Essay

Thomsons Argument Of The Trolley Problem Philosophy Es give voiceA utilitarian is touch with providing the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people, so in this starting signal baptistry a utilitarian would agree with Thomson and would say that it is mandatory to quilt the open up and accomplish the greater number of people. An debate view would say that turning the lever constitutes as a clean-living wrong, and would make the bystander partially responsible for the expiration. One has a moral contract to get involved in these looks just by being express in the scenario and being able to change the outcome. Deciding to do zippo would be considered an immoral act if virtuoso values quin lives much than one. In the offset printing case, the bystander does non intend to persecute allone the harm bequeath be done unheeding of which way the trolley goes. In the present moment case, pushing and harming the volumed man is the only way to still the five pe ople on the trolley.in contrast, Thomson moots that a key distinction betwixt the first trolley problem and the second case is that in the first case, you simply re have the harm, nevertheless in the second case, you actually run through to do something to the large man to save the five workers. Thomson states that in the first case, no worker has more of a compensate than the other not to be putting to deathed, entirely in the second case, the large man does project a overcompensate not to be pushed over the bridge, violating his undecomposed to life.To spew the first trolley case in a different locating I will present a mistakable case. Something has gone rottenly wrong on an air skip and is inevitably about to crash and is drift straight to a heavily populated area. The airplane pilot knows that regardless unimpeachable people will die so he turns the plane towards a less populated area, killing less innocent people. Was the pilots put through to steer the plane in a different shoot forion virtuously permissible? Thomson would say that the pilots actions were correct, because the greater populated are has the selfsame(prenominal) safe to live as the less populated area, and you are merely deflecting the harm to kill less people which is morally permissible because no rights score been violated.Thomson presents an alternative case to the second trolley problem to better garnish her argument. In this case, a surgeon has 5 patients that are all in need of organ channelises, and they will die without the organ, but since they all make believe a rare blood type there are no organs available. A traveler comes into the office for a check up, and the prepare up discovers that this traveler has the necessary organs that could save these five dying patients. The doctor asks the traveler if he would donate and but he sincerely declines. Would it be morally permissible for the doctor to kill the bystander and operate anyway? Thomson would argu e that it is not permissible to operate on the traveler, because the doctor would be violating his right to life. This differs from the first trolley case because in the first case you are simply deflecting the harm as opposed to the second trolley case, and the transplant case, you capture to act and do something to an innocent person in stray to save the five people. In the first case none of the workers have more of a right than the other not to be killed, but in the second case the large man has a right not to be killed. In the transplant case, a utilitarian is concerned with the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people, so just standardised in the first case where a utilitarian would say to pull the lever to kill one and save five, he would do the same in the transplant case to kill one and save five. Thomson disagrees and states that in the first case killing one is a side exploit of killing five, in the transplant case you are violating a persons right where t he act could have been avoided to begin with. Thomson states that killing is worse a death caused by letting someone die.In the first trolley case it would reckon rational to agree that the person is morally obligated to pull the lever and save the five people. In the second case, the person should not be forced to push the large man onto the track because in this case he is killing the man to save the others where as in the first case it is inevitably one or the other. It would also seem rational that the doctor should not kill the man for the transplant because it is similar to the second case. Although in every case you are sacrificing one to save five, there are situations where it is not morally permissible to kill the one person, such as the second case and the transplant case. In these case the persons right to life is violated, and therefore would make it morally permissible to kill them.In order for Thomson to justify her opinions she needs to identify the differences in some(prenominal) cases that is strong enough to make a valid argument. In short, Thomson identifies that in both cases there is an innocent bystander who is not responsible in any of the events, but has the opportunity to get involved in order to save five people instead of the one. She assumes that there is no relationship or tension at all amidst the bystander and the workers so he has a clear mind on what his decision should be. Thomson states that we need to focus on the rights of the people as a means to an end relationship between the bystander and the workers. She argues that in both cases the bystander does wrong to the person whose life he chooses to sacrifice, but in the second case where the bystander pushes the large man, there is a direct violation of his rights. By performing the act of pushing, the bystander is directly violating on the large mans right not to be killed. This differs from the first case where the bystander pulls a lever to kill one and save five, bec ause it does not violate the single workers rights amusing a train does not violate anyones rights, but pushing an innocent man does. Thomson feels that this explains why the bystander is allowed to intervene by pulling the lever because the bystander send away increase the utility without violating anyones rights, whereas in the second case, in order to maximize utility the bystander would have to violate someones rights. The problem arises that in the first case, although the bystander is not directly violating the single workers right, he is indirectly violating his right not to be killed. Thomson replies to this concern by saying that although this is true but it being direct or indirect is not relevant when a persons right not to be killed is concerned.