What If Daniel Sokol Analysis
Asmita Patel
Bradshaw
RDG-101
28 Feb 2016
Paraphrase of “WHAT IF….” by Daniel Sokol In the article “What if….” Daniel Sokol talks about ethical dilemmas in real life. These ethical dilemmas arise when someone have a choice to kill someone to save few lives. For philosophers, such ethical dilemmas serve as classic experiments. In this article, Sokol presents such four predicaments and expects vote from readers in each case. Philosophers use experiments to mental testing their hypothesis. Scientists need complex instruments to carry out their research. On the other hand, philosophers never require sophisticated laboratory, white-robed technician or even animals. These experiments are called thought experiments and philosophers always perform …show more content…
As per Foot, it is better to save four patients and let one die. On other hand, Elizabeth Anscombe, another well philosopher contends that it is better to save one person by treating with entire dose and let remaining patients die. These beliefs about people’s instinct are main ideas for several philosopher’s arguments. The second and most popular thought experiment is the runaway trolley. This experiment differentiates right from wrong. It has two different familiar variations. A runaway trolley car is going down the track. There are five people on its track who can be killed. There is only one option to save these five people but it may kill only one person. A spectator may have to press the switch which will change the direction of trolley to another track where it goes toward one person. In this experiment, 76.85% readers said that they will flip a switch with 23.15% …show more content…
In this experiment, the trolley car is going down a track which can kill five people on its path. There is a bridge above the track and someone watches this trolley coming down the track. The person anticipates this tragedy and decides to block the car by jumping on the track. Blocking the track may save five people but the person has to lose his/her life. Before jump, the person realises that he/she is too light to block the trolley on the track. He/she needs a heavy person to stop the car. There is a fat man standing next to the person on the bridge. If the person pushes gently him down the bridge, he may block the track even though he would die because of severe impact. There is no one around to see the person pushing the fat man. The writers asked readers opinion whether they will push the fat man or not with 73.12% said no and 26.88% said yes. The British philosopher, Philippa Foot says everyone would prefer to press the switch in the first scenario, but majority of readers would not push the fat man in the second scenario. The theoretical confusion in these scenario is that readers ready to sacrifice one person in first case but not in the fat man case. It is not acceptable morally to kill one person to save many people. The last example explains that certain actions should not be done which involve intentionally killing of innocent persons against their
Bradshaw
RDG-101
28 Feb 2016
Paraphrase of “WHAT IF….” by Daniel Sokol In the article “What if….” Daniel Sokol talks about ethical dilemmas in real life. These ethical dilemmas arise when someone have a choice to kill someone to save few lives. For philosophers, such ethical dilemmas serve as classic experiments. In this article, Sokol presents such four predicaments and expects vote from readers in each case. Philosophers use experiments to mental testing their hypothesis. Scientists need complex instruments to carry out their research. On the other hand, philosophers never require sophisticated laboratory, white-robed technician or even animals. These experiments are called thought experiments and philosophers always perform …show more content…
As per Foot, it is better to save four patients and let one die. On other hand, Elizabeth Anscombe, another well philosopher contends that it is better to save one person by treating with entire dose and let remaining patients die. These beliefs about people’s instinct are main ideas for several philosopher’s arguments. The second and most popular thought experiment is the runaway trolley. This experiment differentiates right from wrong. It has two different familiar variations. A runaway trolley car is going down the track. There are five people on its track who can be killed. There is only one option to save these five people but it may kill only one person. A spectator may have to press the switch which will change the direction of trolley to another track where it goes toward one person. In this experiment, 76.85% readers said that they will flip a switch with 23.15% …show more content…
In this experiment, the trolley car is going down a track which can kill five people on its path. There is a bridge above the track and someone watches this trolley coming down the track. The person anticipates this tragedy and decides to block the car by jumping on the track. Blocking the track may save five people but the person has to lose his/her life. Before jump, the person realises that he/she is too light to block the trolley on the track. He/she needs a heavy person to stop the car. There is a fat man standing next to the person on the bridge. If the person pushes gently him down the bridge, he may block the track even though he would die because of severe impact. There is no one around to see the person pushing the fat man. The writers asked readers opinion whether they will push the fat man or not with 73.12% said no and 26.88% said yes. The British philosopher, Philippa Foot says everyone would prefer to press the switch in the first scenario, but majority of readers would not push the fat man in the second scenario. The theoretical confusion in these scenario is that readers ready to sacrifice one person in first case but not in the fat man case. It is not acceptable morally to kill one person to save many people. The last example explains that certain actions should not be done which involve intentionally killing of innocent persons against their