Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • 114 views

    Good Vs Right

    Uploaded by

    api-242677718
    The document discusses a thought experiment involving a runaway train with two choices: continue straight and kill five people, or pull a lever and divert onto a side track killing one person. John Stuart Mill would argue to divert to the side track, killing one person to save the greater number, in line with his view that morality is based on consequences and producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant would likely argue to continue straight, as diverting would treat one person merely as a means to save others, violating his view that morality is based on acting from duty and respecting each person's dignity and rights. The author concludes they would divert to save more lives total, aligning with

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Good Vs Right

    Uploaded by

    api-242677718
    114 views2 pages
    The document discusses a thought experiment involving a runaway train with two choices: continue straight and kill five people, or pull a lever and divert onto a side track killing one person. John Stuart Mill would argue to divert to the side track, killing one person to save the greater number, in line with his view that morality is based on consequences and producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant would likely argue to continue straight, as diverting would treat one person merely as a means to save others, violating his view that morality is based on acting from duty and respecting each person's dignity and rights. The author concludes they would divert to save more lives total, aligning with

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    good vs right

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    The document discusses a thought experiment involving a runaway train with two choices: continue straight and kill five people, or pull a lever and divert onto a side track killing one person. John Stuart Mill would argue to divert to the side track, killing one person to save the greater number, in line with his view that morality is based on consequences and producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant would likely argue to continue straight, as diverting would treat one person merely as a means to save others, violating his view that morality is based on acting from duty and respecting each person's dignity and rights. The author concludes they would divert to save more lives total, aligning with

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    114 views2 pages

    Good Vs Right

    Uploaded by

    api-242677718
    The document discusses a thought experiment involving a runaway train with two choices: continue straight and kill five people, or pull a lever and divert onto a side track killing one person. John Stuart Mill would argue to divert to the side track, killing one person to save the greater number, in line with his view that morality is based on consequences and producing the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Immanuel Kant would likely argue to continue straight, as diverting would treat one person merely as a means to save others, violating his view that morality is based on acting from duty and respecting each person's dignity and rights. The author concludes they would divert to save more lives total, aligning with

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    Module 2

    The Good vs. The Right.


    Suppose you are a train conductor on a runaway train. The train heads
    straight for five men who will not have time to get out of the way, and your
    train will kill them. But! You notice there is a track going to the right, and you
    have just enough time to pull the lever and turn onto that track. There is one
    person on that track who will die just as assuredly as the five would if you
    stayed on their track. Should you head to the right?

    John Stuart Mill would probably want me to go to the right, because he


    believes in the Greatest Happiness Principle which states that we should
    find the greatest happiness for the greatest number of people. As he says,
    that the happiness which forms the utilitarian standard of what is right in
    conduct, is not the agents own happiness, but that of all concerned. (pg.
    155-156). Even if I personally would choose to stay going left, I couldn't
    because I have to think of everyone involved, not just myself. His reasoning
    here plants him firmly within the Moral Framework called The Good, where
    morality is judged by looking at effects and consequences.
    On the other hand, Kant reasons from framework called The Right,
    where morality is measured by considering respect, dignity, and justice. Thus,
    he would most likely tell me to stay to the left. For one thing, Kants moral
    theory requires us to follow the Categorical Imperative: one form stating, Act
    only on that maxim through which you can at the same time will that it should
    become universal law. What Kant means here is do not act on something
    unless it is true in every scenario. So, you can see that he is primarily
    concerned about what is right and he would probably conclude that I should
    continue going left.
    Personally, I think I should pull the lever to go right. Even though I might
    share some of the values underlying Kants position, like justice for each
    individual, I nevertheless would decide to hit the single person on the track
    because I side more with Mill. Although I would feel extremely guilty either

    way, I would choose to save more over less. My reasoning here seems to fall
    under the framework called The Good because I am primarily focused on
    saving more individuals. However, if age came into play, that would be a
    whole different story. What would you do if you were headed towards five
    people on the track, but they were elderly? They have already had years and
    years of life. You also have the choice to pull the lever to go right where there
    is only a single person, but this individual is a teen who has hardly lived.
    Would this change your decision? It would mine. Interesting thought.

    You might also like