Discussion Forum 3

In 1967, British philosopher Philippa Foot posed what has become known as “The Trolley problem.”  This ethical brainteaser asks us to consider  what we would do in the following scenario: A conductor has lost control of a trolley, which is speeding down the track.  Up ahead the conductor sees five people who are on the track and for reasons unknown they cannot escape the trolleys path.  The five people are poor, uneducated, homeless LBGTQ immigrants of various ages and health who have entered the country illegally. The conductor has an ethical decision to make:  she can either stay on the main track, and thereby kill the five people in front of him or he can switch to a nearby sidetrack, where only one person is on the track instead of five.  The one person is a well respected highly educated medical doctor who is doing cutting edge research in treating women with breast cancer and a national advocate for social justice.  Should the conductor steer the trolley onto the sidetrack killing one person rather than five or should she stay the course and thus kill the five rather than the one?  

In another scenario, a magistrate is faced with a very real threat from a large and uncontrollable mob of rioters demanding a culprit for a crime. Unless the criminal is produced, promptly tried, and executed, they will take their own bloody revenge on a much smaller and quite vulnerable section of the community. The judge knows that the real culprit is unknown and that the authorities do not even have a good clue as to who he might be. But he also knows that there is within easy reach a disreputable, thoroughly disliked, and useless man, who, though innocent, could easily be framed so that the mob would be quite convinced that he was guilty and would be pacified if he were promptly executed. Recognizing that he can prevent the occurrence of extensive carnage only by framing some innocent person, the magistrate has him framed, goes through the mockery of a trial, and has him executed.

• What is the difference between an act utilitarian and a rule utilitarian? 
• When making moral decisions, do you behave more like an act utilitarian or a rule utilitarian?  Explain your answer.
• As a utilitarian, how would you respond to “the Trolley Problem” and why would you respond this way?
• As a utilitarian, do you agree with the Magistrate’s decision?  Why/why not?
• If you were the Magistrate, how would you handle the situation?        

Remember: it is imperative that:

1. You post on time.  No late work will be accepted.

2. Your initial response to the forum questions is at least 450 words and answers all of the forum questions correctly.  In doing so, your response should show a full understanding of the topic and its complexities, appropriately utilize lecture and reading material, and defend your position with credible evidence that supports your claim.

3. Your secondary response offer is at least 200 words and offers an excellent analysis and evaluation of another student’s initial post in a way that develops and creates a deeper conversation on the the topic by the due date.

4. You state your thoughts in an intelligent and coherent manner and answer each question with a separate paragraph or bullet point.

The response that need to be 200 words

1. Act utilitarianism is a theory of ethics that states a person’s actions are morally right if their actions produce the best outcome for that specific situation. Rule utilitarianism is an ethical theory that states that an action is right if it conforms to a rule that leads to the greatest good. The difference between the two is that act utilitarianism leads one to make a moral decision that would benefit the most people or that would most benefit the situation, while rule utilitarianism leads one to follow the rules set in place despite what would be the most beneficial in the situation. 

2. When I make decisions I think I behave more like an act utilitarian. I make decisions on what I feel would benefit me and the others around me the most. For example, I am going to college because going to college will allow me to get a job and be successful. Being successful would allow me to be responsible for myself and take the financial burden off my family. 

3. How would I respond to the Trolley Problem? Well, if we look at the situation logically, the conductor would not know the background of the people that were in harm’s way. The conductor would only see the number of people rather than who the people are. Since this question was proposed in the 60s of course the question is using immigration, LGBTQ, poverty, and homelessness, as a way to discriminate and purpose the doctor’s life as more valuable. If the conductor saw the people stuck on the track ahead of time, wouldn’t the conductor try to stop the trolley? 

4. I do not agree with the Magistrates decision. Purposely putting an innocent person to death is immoral, especially in this situation where the Magistrate is just trying to calm a mob.

5. If I were the Magistrate I would not have put an innocent person to death. The mob was making threats, which is illegal. So If I was the Magistrate I would report the threat to the police and the mob would be arrested.

6.