Case Study 4

CVE173
Civil Engineering Law Contracts and Ethics

Case Study #4
Submitted by:
Jowell Leshner C. Navarro
Submitted to:
Engr. Steve Anthony N. Lim
Task
The Trolley Cart Problem, originally created by the British moral
philosophers Philippa Foot and Judith Jarvis Thomson, is a thought exercise that
seeks to challenge the moral and ethical principles of those who try to answer. It
has spawned countless variation and remains to this day a topic of debate among
philosophers. Its applicability in the professional setting is very profound as it
simulates a difficult scenario where a decision has to be made, but no clear answer
can be discerned.
With that in mind, do the following:
1. Present the Trolley Cart Problem in its original version.
2. Present a narrative or essay that outlines your solution to the problem and
discuss your reasoning for coming up with that answer.
3. Present a variation that introduces and different aspect the Trolley Cart
Problem.
4. Present a narrative or essay that outlines your solution to this new problem
and discuss your reasoning for coming up with that answer.
Trolley Cart Problem
The "Trolley Dilemma' is an ethical thought experiment where there is a

runaway trolley moving down railway tracks. In its path, there are five people tied
up and unable to move and the trolley is heading straight for them.
The most basic version of the dilemma, known as "Bystander at the Switch" or
"Switch", goes:
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the
tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed
straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a
lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks.
However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two (and
only two) options:
1. Do nothing, in which case the trolley will kill the five people on the main
track.
2. Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one
person.
Foot's version of the thought experiment, now known as "Trolley Driver", ran as
follows:
Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a
culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own
bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being
unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing
some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed
another in which a pilot whose airplane is about to crash is deciding whether to
steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible,
it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram, which he can
only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track
and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In
the case of the riots, the mob have five hostages, so that in both examples, the
exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five. (Foot, n.d.)
What to Know
According to Merriam-Webster (2020), the trolley problem is a thought
experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice
to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill
just 1 person. The term is often used more loosely with regard to any choice that
seemingly has a trade-off between what is good and what sacrifices are
"acceptable," if at all.
The "trolley problem" is widely thought to have been invented by Philippa
Foot, an English philosopher. She was born in 1920 and spent many years teaching
at Oxford.
Another woman philosopher, Judith Jarvis Thomson, who teaches at M.,
expanded on and popularized the trolley problem. It is now used as an exercise in
many law schools as well as many introductory ethics courses throughout the
United States, as well as in the United Kingdom and Australia.
Solution to the Problem of Bystander at the Switch

DO NOTHING. If I do nothing, the trolley will kill the five people on the
main track.
I come up with the idea of doing nothing for three reasons. First of all,
regardless of the number of individuals, it is neither my responsibility nor my task
to make a choice that could injure any one person. Second, in that I took action,
saving those five people also equates to me committing murder. Third, since I did
nothing, the only person who can hold me accountable is my conscience.
From a utilitarian point of view, you will save five lives while sacrificing
one if you act. Even if the numbers and outcomes are similar, the process by which
we arrive at them is not, which is what distinguishes them. By switching tracks,
you actively save the lives of five people. A single person dies as a result of your
actions, but it was not the direct result of your actions because you pulled the lever
to save greater number of people. You rescued people. This makes moral sense,
but it's easier said than done. (Juma & Juma, 2016)
However, you taking an action should not be disregarded. Because of that
it puts you on a point where you are involved in such result. And being involved
also means that you are already taking responsibility of the happenings and the
aftermath of the said action.
Taking an action, pulling the lever, to ignore a single life in order to save
five, automatically makes you guilty of killing a person though you are not
considered a murderer. Justifiable homicide is not murder at all, as it is not
considered criminal. Rather, it is the taking of another's life in circumstances in
which the killing was necessary as the only means of preventing the murder of
one's self or to protect another. Because the killing was justifiable, the person who
committed the killing will not be held criminally liable for the death, though civil
liability may still exist.
Therefore, doing nothing can exonerate you of others' guilt; the only catch
is your own conscience. It is more logical to believe that being inactive reduces
your liability than acting.
The Emergency Room Case

Imagine a homeless person enters an emergency room of a large city
hospital. Imagine that after a quick check, the homeless person is judged to be “fit
as a fiddle,” in excellent good health. Now imagine the hospital has five patients
on the upper floors in need of a transplant: two in need of a kidney, two in need of
a lung and one in need of a heart.
Imagine that the heart, lungs and kidneys of the homeless make a good
match for each of the five. Say, too, that unless each of the five receive a transplant
of the required organ, he or she will die straightaway. Their only hope for survival
are the lungs, kidneys and heart of this homeless person. Why not harvest the
organs from the homeless person and transplant his organs, thereby saving the lives
of five for the price of one? Imagine you are the doctor on call in the emergency
room at this moment. What would you do?
Solution to the Emergency Room Case

In both cases there is the opportunity to save five lives for the price of one.
There are, of course, differences between the two cases. One takes place in a
hospital; the other outside on some trolley tracks.
One reason some believed, the emergency room case involved a complex
institutional system. The decision to end the life of a homeless person must be
made by someone from the medical profession, most likely a doctor who has taken
the Hippocratic oath, or has sworn to save human life. In this case, of course,
more lives would be saved than lost but to get there from here, one life would have
to be taken. Doctors swear to do no harm.
Also, if institutional concern is further expressed that it was determined or
proved that the harvesting of the homeless person's organs was permissible in this
case, others hearing about it would be hesitant to visit emergency rooms for fear of
finding themselves in a situation similar to that of the homeless person, and that
this would not be a good thing in the long run, leading to worse consequences
overall. People who are ill and should go to the emergency room would be hesitant
to do so for fear of losing their organs, and their illness or condition would go
undetected, causing them to suffer and possibly (even) die.
With all of these reasons, I would not sacrifice the organs of the homeless
person to save other even if I am or I am not a doctor.
References
Editors of Merriam-Webster. (2020). What is the 'Trolley Problem?’. The
Merriam-Webster.Com Dictionary. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from
https://www.merriam-webster.com/words-at-play/trolley-problem-moral-
philosophy-ethics
Foot, P. (n.d.) "The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect"
in Virtues and Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978) (originally appeared
in the Oxford Review, Number 5, 1967.)
Juma, A., & Juma, A. (2016, January 27). The Trolley Cart Problem & Moral
Decisions. Aly Juma. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from
https://alyjuma.com/trolley/
University of Exeter (2020). Trolley dilemma: When it's acceptable to sacrifice
one person to save others is informed by culture. PHYSORG. Retrieved
June 22, 2022, from https://phys.org/news/2020-01-trolley-dilemma-
sacrifice-person-culture.html

Case Study 4

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case Study 4

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

CVE173

Civil Engineering Law Contracts and Ethics

The "Trolley Dilemma' is an ethical thought experiment where there is a

Solution to the Problem of Bystander at the Switch

The Emergency Room Case

Solution to the Emergency Room Case

Editors of Merriam-Webster. (2020). What is the 'Trolley Problem?’. The

Merriam-Webster.Com Dictionary. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from

Decisions. Aly Juma. Retrieved June 22, 2022, from

University of Exeter (2020). Trolley dilemma: When it's acceptable to sacrifice

one person to save others is informed by culture. PHYSORG. Retrieved

June 22, 2022, from https://phys.org/news/2020-01-trolley-dilemma-

You might also like