We start the course thinking about ethical theory. We will think about the theory this week and then in subsequent weeks we'll apply our theories to the specific situations of business.
First, watch Michael Sandel's introduction to his course on Justice:
http://www.justiceharvard.org/2011/03/episode-01/#watch
Second, answer these questions in your study groups and give a unified response. You don't all have to agree, just write up one answer noting any disagreement, rather than each of you responding individually.
1) What would you do if you were the trolley driver?
2) What would you do if you were the on-looker above the tracks on the bridge?
3) Would you save 5 people with organs from 1 innocent person?
4) Has your reasoning changed from answer 1 to 2 to 3?
GROUP ABA:
ReplyDelete1) What would you do if you were the trolley driver? We decided as a team that we would turn the trolley towards the individual worker. It seems more logical to save more lives since we have the option.
2) What would you do if you were the on-looker above the tracks on the bridge? We would not push the fat guy onto the track. We agreed with the student who said that it took more action/effort/thought to push the innocent bystander then to save the others.
3) Would you save 5 people with organs from 1 innocent person? This seems odd. We definitely would not take the healthy person's life to save the others. If the healthy man would not have come in for a check up that would have never been an option. This circumstance does not even seem realistic.
4) Has your reasoning changed from answer 1 to 2 to 3? Yes, the circumstances are different in all three cases. It all depends on which option seems most logical at the time of the situation.
Group: Moms on a Mission:
ReplyDelete1. We decided as a team that we would turn the trolley towards the one worker because it makes the most sense to have one person die rather than numerous.
2. We all feel that it is morally wrong to push the "fat man" over the bridge. By pushing him you are deciding to kill someone, rather than when you are driving the trolley it is not a decision to kill people, you are just trying to make the most logical decision.
3. No. If the man is healthy and not dying why would you?! That is not even a decision that needs to be made.
4. We agree with ABA on this. The circumstances are all different which changes how you approach the situation and process it.
Hi Maura,
DeletePersonally I think there is no good answer here, they all stink. Anyway you go you are most likely going to kill someone. Honestly I don't know that I would be able to intelligently think this through speeding down the tracks. Would I scream and yell for them to move? I do know that what ever decision I did make would haunt me for the rest of my life, regardless. I hope I never have to consider this.
Group: Tan Soup:
ReplyDelete1) What would you do if you were the trolley driver? Tan Soup first discussed the facts. As the trolley driver, on an out of control trolley would we spare the life of five to take the life of at one? We chose to take the life of one, even with consideration that it may cost us our own life too (as the trolley driver, when we “hit” the one worker, it could cause the trolley to derail and we could lose our life. It is a personal choice to save 5 versus 1 and Tan Soup believes this to be our best option.
2) What would you do if you were the on-looker above the tracks on the bridge? This is truly a dilemma. If we are standing on the bridge next to a “fat man”, does pushing him over the bridge to spare the lives of many mean we play God? Do we believe in fate, do we believe in chance? If we push the man over the bridge, we commit a willful act of murder. We didn't ask the man, we made the choice for him. The thought to ponder is – couldn't we just have easily made the decision to jump off the bridge and save the lives of many? We chose not to push the man of the bridge.
3) Would you save 5 people with organs from 1 innocent person? Doctor’s take a Hippocratic oath. They play God with decisions all the time, but as presented, we would not take the life of one innocent person to save the lives of five who needed the organs. Again, this should be the choice of that innocent person. We liked the rationale behind the answer given – to see which person may be in a position not to survive, and see if they are an organ donor; if not, then perhaps ask them or their families if they would consider donating their organs to save four others.
4) Has your reasoning changed from answer 1 to 2 to 3? Somewhat. In question 1 we agreed to take the life of one to spare the lives of 5 and by the 3rd question, we are seeking other alternatives.
From what I have read, all the groups have come to the exact same solutions. They are also the same conclusions that I came up with on my own. I would love to have more info as to why the 5 workers were on the operational track.
ReplyDeleteWould McCoy's group have behaved differently if they had come across a Western man rather than a Sadhu? I don't believe it would have made a difference to McCoy because he comes across as a type A personality and those types of people usually are out for themselves. As for others, I do believe if they had identified more with the Sadhu they would have supported him like any decent human being would.
ReplyDeleteRapidly this kind of link may well irrefutably find yourself famous among each creating many individuals, as a result of thorough posts and also critiques and also scores. Alexander Malshakov
ReplyDelete