Many times, individuals find themselves in environments where each choice has a consequence. In such situations, they wonder which option to take, especially where both possible solutions are attached to a bad consequence, and at the same time, it leads to a positive outcome. These puzzles leave people at a crossroads where all the possible actions they can use to solve the issue come with a sacrifice than one they have to make. In such situations, the individuals have to evaluate the possible outcomes where the consequence will have fewer negative impacts. Similar conundrums are presented in the book The Trolley Problem or Would You Throw the Fat Guy off the Bridge? by Thomas Cathcart, where the characters make arguments that they thought were convincing. The conundrums captured in the different sections involve characters who prove the decisions they made when confronted with the conflicting situation were best for the scenario they encountered. This paper explains the various mind-blowing arguments captured in the book that were highly impactful throughout the course, explaining the various aspects to consider when conformed by a similar situation.
The main perspective in this paper is that individuals should take actions that allow minimizing potential harm when they find themselves in situations similar to the trolley problem. The concepts provided in the arguments made in the book’s different sections collectively regarding the nuances of the trolley problem and the possible options that one might have when facing it, try to explain the factors to consider when dealing with the trolley problem. Such sections in the book provide convincing information that the actions executed after the development of the conundrum were the best for the presented situation. An analysis of the cases on the trolley problem involves challenging puzzles where the characters do not have a safe choice to prevent the problem from happening (Cathcart 3). For example, the trolley problem creates a complicated situation where the characters involved have to make quick decisions that would entail outcomes with the largest good and the least bad outcome. Such circumstances lead to applying the thought experiment that requires critical thinking to comprehend. Consequently, the characters involved are presented with the opportunity to change the event’s outcome by weighing the expected effects and executing the activity that will cause less harm since the development of a loss is inevitable.
In turn, the trolley problem as it relates to different areas of people’s lives appear to require prevention as opposed to the development of a specific solution. Namely, the outcomes of the identified legal and ethical dilemma are introduced into the very nature of the puzzle. Specifically, the fact that one of the groups or people being put into danger in the specified ethical conundrum will inevitably have to face cruel death indicates that the introduction of another perspective into the specified notion. Namely, the emphasis on studying one’s fate its nature, and inevitability, as well as the ethical repercussions of making a choice and the associated principles of moral relativism, are required. Based on the evidence from the selected cases, most character actions, and arguments, it is convincing that sacrificing one individual to save five is the best option whenever an individual is confronted with a trolley problem.
The police statement section is one case that confirms agreement with undertaking the option with fewer consequences. This section outlines the legal perspective on the trolley problem, where it quotes the law to support the outcome with the lesser impact option. The main character in this section is Daphne Jones, who was involved in a case where she threw a trolley that involuntarily killed one individual but saved five. Through the section, one learns the legal perspective of the trolley problem concerning exception 3 to section 1932 of manslaughter. According to the argument in the passage, “killing another person when you kills to protect yourself or another from being killed or suffering great bodily injury does not constitute manslaughter either voluntarily or involuntarily” (Cathcart 11). Based on the information provided in the section, one can understand how the law solves such issues by considering the effects of similar incidences and the nature of the fatalities involved. Like any other sections exploiting factors like ethics, religion, and philosophy, dealing with such puzzles requires that the parties faced with such conditions consider the option with the least bad effects, as suggested in the book.
Another mind-blowing scenario is presented in Bishop’s brief section as it involves religion, considered a source of moral behavior for most individuals worldwide. It is perceived that most people across the globe are affiliated with a religious belief that they use as a source of morality and a guide for living a righteous life. The Bishop’s Brief provides a religious stand on the best action to be executed in the trolley problem or in scenarios that put individuals in similar conundrums. According to the brief “an action often has two effects, one good and one bad, an under certain conditions it may be permissible to perform a good act that has a bad consequence, even one that we would ordinarily be obliged to avoid” (Cathcart 64). The ishop argues that the outcome of such puzzles should have a good effect that is sufficient to compensate for the bad effect. This section was highly persuasive as it provides a religious view of the possible actions to take in the trolley problem. In this case, the section also agrees with the other parts of the book, which suggest undertaking the action with the least negative outcome.
In the altruist’s dilemma section, the book places an individual at the center of the dilemma in question. Specifically, a hypothetical individual is exposed to a situation where they have to decide on whether to engage in a specific action will entail positive or negative outcomes and whether it can be defined as positive or negative itself based on the premise and the results. The analysis of the information provided in this section leads to the insights that explain why some people choose to do morally questionable things despite being in a position to make a positive change. This aspect is evident when one individual argues the following: “I am willing to be altruistic in some situations, but not at the cost of my life” (Cathcart 86). The argument in the section provides highly convincing information on why people abandon their altruistic nature. Based on such a dilemma, individuals can act consciously but deliberately suppress what they know as true and act in a manner that shows that individuals are not truly altruistic Reading this section is highly informative as it enables the readers to understand why people choose to act without considering the value of human life and make decisions that may not be perfect for the situation.
In conclusion, the book provides puzzles where most of the characters involved undertook the action leading to a lesser damage or impact as it is the one perceived to be morally right and, therefore preferable. The book’s various sections outline different perspectives individuals can use to attain the best course of action when confronted with such puzzles. The book’s overall theme entails the trolley problem, which provides a puzzling situation where an individual is allowed to press a button to divert the rail. The person saves five people and sacrifices one or throws one fat guy down to the rail to save the five. Whether to press the diversion button or throw the fat one provides to the character, they have to make a choice that would not have more negative impacts. The police statement section provides the legal perspective of such conditions where the law states that killing to protect oneself or others from being killed or from obtaining significant injuries is not considered manslaughter. The bishop brief and the altruist’s dilemma sections provide a religious and personal view of dealing with cases where the option with lesser adverse effects are considered.
Work Cited
Cathcart, Thomas. The Trolley Problem or Would You Throw the Fat Guy off the Bridge?: A Philosophical Conundrum. Workman Publishing, 2013.