Double-Effect In Philippa Foot's 'The Case Of The Fat Man'

it makes me reconsider my moral philosophy. I believe that to measure morality, we must maximize the happiness of the best number if individuals. In the case of the Spur, I would pull the lever and send the trolley on to kill the one instead of the five. However, this goes against my belief that it is wrong to cause another person’s death. This experiment has made me ponder on what I believe is right or wrong. On one hand, if I left the trolley on its path it would kill the five people but I would not feel responsible for it because it was bound to happen. On the other hand, if I pulled the lever and killed the one instead I would feel responsible because I deliberately choose my action. Edmonds also discussed Philippa Foot, the creator of
In the case of the Fat Man, it is similar to the Spur but instead of pulling the lever, one would push the Fat Man onto the track stopping the trolley but killing him in the process.I would not push the fat man but, I would pull the lever because I am not killing someone but rather letting them die. My thought process is that I am not inflicting harm on the individual in Spur but in the Fat Man if I push him it is an intentional act. Foot presents the idea of the Doctrine of Double-Effect which allows harm to be caused if the side effect brings about a greater good. However, when you consider how the scenario is set up there is no right answer because every answer is horrible. For example, autonomous cars are already a reality today. They must be programmed to make moral decisions such as saving the lives of those in the car or pedestrians in case of an accident. Self-driving cars are made for the greater good of the public which means the car will more likely save the pedestrians than the passengers. This is quite problematic because as I stated before, autonomous cars are already on our streets and if they are programmed to save the most lives then it is not so different from Spur. We still choose to take a life justifying it by saying “it is for the greater good.” Ultimately, scenarios such as these help us to realize that deep down in the human subconscious we have dark and tempting thoughts. This
Yet, he never gives us an answer to the scenarios which bothers me because I am the type of person that wants a direct answer. Instead, he presents countless options leaving it up to the readers to decide. Furthermore, Edmonds discusses the connection between rationality and emotions. He says that utilitarians have an inclination to practice morally right acts that will achieve the greatest good for the masses. For utilitarians, sacrificing the one to save the five is the right thing to do. Killing an innocent wrong, but if it brings about the best consequence then to perform the morally wrong act: pushing the Fat Man, is right because it will save more people. While killing an innocent person is not a good consequence letting the trolley kill the five people is an even worse outcome. On the other hand, deontologists say that killing an innocent person is wrong no matter the outcome or consequences. Like many others, I believe that it is wrong to engage in an act that physically harms other even though I am content to pull the lever. Edmonds mentions how Kant states that (person as a means to an end). In the footbridge case, we are treating the fat man as a means to an end, treating them like an object rather than a human being. This goes against our moral intuitions because we were taught to treat people with respect and not a means to an end. The trolley cases are a real testament to our moral