Philippa Foot Rescue 2 Summary
In this classic piece written by Philippa Foot who discusses if it’s morally permissible between killing and letting die with a variety of different scenarios drawn out for analysis. I am going to talk about the scenario of Rescue 1 and its analysis of the permissibility according to Foot. I will also talk about the Rescue 2 case which has a twist to the analysis. The final analysis will be of Foot’s trolley case in which she explains “diverting” as a permissibility. Then the big test of my knowledge will come into play when I tackle the scenario of Jewish refugees whom escaped and whether its permissible to kill one to save them all from being captured. Let’s first start with Rescue 1 so I can fill you in on the scenario. Philippa Foot gives
…show more content…
Foot gives us a scenario just like Rescue 1 but with a slight twist to the situation. In this scenario we are still rushing to go save the same group of five people who are in danger of the threatening ocean tide. However, the one aspect that has changed between the two scenarios is that in Rescue 2, the one individual is trapped on the road. Now hearing this one would could say to just go around him if that’s the case. Foot must have thought the same coincidence so she also decided to throw in the mix that the road we are traveling on is too narrow to be able to go around this individual. Knowing all of this and the new specifications in place, in order to rendezvous with the group of five people, you would have to drive over the one individual becoming what Foot calls the “agent of harm”. In driving over this one individual, you initiate a fatal sequence causing the death of the individual trapped on the road to save five. Foot states “it may be right to allow one person to die in order to save five, although it would not be right to kill him to bring the same good to them” (Foot 818). In this case, it is not permissible to kill the one person trapped on the road. Instead its permissible to save this one individual and let the group of five die since you are not committing a fatal sequence, you are allowing it to
Foot gives us a scenario just like Rescue 1 but with a slight twist to the situation. In this scenario we are still rushing to go save the same group of five people who are in danger of the threatening ocean tide. However, the one aspect that has changed between the two scenarios is that in Rescue 2, the one individual is trapped on the road. Now hearing this one would could say to just go around him if that’s the case. Foot must have thought the same coincidence so she also decided to throw in the mix that the road we are traveling on is too narrow to be able to go around this individual. Knowing all of this and the new specifications in place, in order to rendezvous with the group of five people, you would have to drive over the one individual becoming what Foot calls the “agent of harm”. In driving over this one individual, you initiate a fatal sequence causing the death of the individual trapped on the road to save five. Foot states “it may be right to allow one person to die in order to save five, although it would not be right to kill him to bring the same good to them” (Foot 818). In this case, it is not permissible to kill the one person trapped on the road. Instead its permissible to save this one individual and let the group of five die since you are not committing a fatal sequence, you are allowing it to