Human beings possess a subconscious that determines various situations, especially during tough moments involving dilemmas. The Trolley Problem offers severe cases that require making a moral decision that entails dire consequences. All the conditions are problematic given the effects point to specific terrible outcomes as there’s no incentive to change elements within a scene. Each variant offers various opinions regarding the similarity or difference of the questions; “What is the right thing to do?” and “What would you do?”
Firstly, in the original problem as the trolley driver, I would take the option of pulling the switch. My reason for making such a choice is selecting the lesser evil. I would rather have one life lost and save the lives of five individuals. For the first scenario, I feel the two questions, “What is the right thing to do?” and “What would you do?” are converging. The second case is that of the fat man variant, where I am an observer on a bridge. I wouldn’t push him given that would translate to murder, in my opinion. The result would bring the death of the five, which is tragic though I feel involving the fat individual would convert to unfairness. Suppose he is a villain responsible for placing the others in danger on the tracks, I would push, sacrificing him and saving the rest for he is directly involved in this case. The two questions differ, given what I would do doesn’t feel morally right.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
Another scenario is the loved one variant where the pulling of the switch would result in the death of such a person. I think I wouldn’t pull it given subconsciously I can’t bear the thought of losing a loved one. My honest perception is that what I would do and if it is the right thing to pursue are diverging. The next case involves the option of diverting the trolley’s path by colliding another onto it. It will result in pushing over both down a hill into a yard and eventually kill a man sleeping in a hammock. My action would involve making no intervention given involving oneself would translate to murder. I feel it is unfair to place someone within danger for an event that he has no direct involvement. The questions “What is the right thing to do?” and “What would you do?” are converging for this variant.
The next alteration is given instead of saving five and killing one individual; the result of my action is losing four lives to keep five in the cases above. For the original problem, I wouldn’t change my response given I would somewhat salvage more lives. The fat man and the man sleeping in his yard variant remains the same given they lack direct involvement in the impending tragedy. Likewise, I wouldn’t change my action involving loved ones given my subconscious wouldn’t allow me to hurt such persons. The last scenario involves selecting between using the organs of a tourist to save five dying patients or not. Though acting on the former would result in saving the five and losing one life with no questions asked after that given nobody would suspect the doctor, I would opt for not sacrificing his life to save the rest. The tourist has no direct involvement with the others, and taking the contrary action to mine would translate to murder in my opinion.
The Trolley Problem offers options all with tragic outcomes of different proportions. My choices translate to acting instinctively and consciously with several reasons. The last variant is similar to the Trolley Problem given the ethical dilemma it presents of selecting an action. All the cases are problematic with choosing a lesser evil a valid option.
