Utilitarian trolley problem

下面为大家整理一篇优秀的essay代写范文 -- Utilitarian trolley problem，文章讲述基于“实用主义法”的基础，驾驶员可以通过以下方式进行计算。转移手推车杀死一个人比让五个人死亡更好。毕竟，重要的是社会效用的平衡。因此，在这种情况下，这很容易-五减一等于四！余额是四个人。他转移手推车而节省下来的四个人将继续为社会做出贡献。

Utilitarian trolley problem

The dilemma which the driver of the trolley faces is presented by the fact that if he did not made any effort to stop the train, he the trolley would run towards the five people on the train, if he lever the swift, the trolley would run towards another rail and another person would be killed.

Basing on the Act Utilitarian ground, the driver might compute in the following way. Killing one person by diverting the trolley is better than letting five people die. After all, what matters is the balance of social utility. Therefore, in this case, it is an easy job--five minus one is four ! The balance is four people. The four people saved by his diverting the trolley would continue to contribute to the society. Thus it seems that the above is all the computation and the driver would divert the trolley and save the five people by killing the other on the other rail. However, this is to simplify Act Utilitarianism. Act Utilitarianism might take into account the overall influences of this case on the society. Just imagine that people in his society might trapped in panic, once they learn that the trolley driver is doing such a thing basing on such a computation—they just don’t know when they would be killed by people in the name of social utility. Thus the driver would take into account whether his decision would lead to uncertainty and more bloodshed. If the driver found that no one knows that it is his calculation of utility which drives him to divert the trolley, he might divert the trolley, since no further costs would be caused by his actions.

However, on the Rule Utilitarian ground, no detailed calculation is involved. The driver might reason in the following way. He might resort to some rules based on the Principle of Utility. What matters is not the overall utility in his case, but rather certain rule suiting his case. If he knows that there is a rule saying that killing people with intention is always wrong to the extent that it always produces the lowest social utility, he would feel obligated to let the five people die. On the other hand, if he knows that there is a rule saying that killing people in this circumstance would always produce the most utility and thus is right to do that, he would divert the trolley.

Thus, it seems that on the utilitarian ground, this case is not a dilemma at all. By the computation grounded by utilitarian standpoint it is possible to make conclusive decision. What Utilitarianism cares is the overall social utility created by actions or rules. Even though there are two types of Utilitarianism—Act Utilitarianism and Rule Utilitarianism—their computation might drive to the same policy or decision in the end. Anyway, both are able to make conclusive decisions.

However, the utilitarian ground might confront some criticism. As for the act utilitarianism, people might respond that killing intentionally is always a murder, it could not be justified the lives of the five people saved by murder. However, Act Utilitarianism would respond that the concept “murder” is presupposing a moral judgment grounded by the Deontology ground—killing intentionally is always morally wrong and should be labeled as “murder”. For Utilitarianism, every moral judgment should be made on the ground of utility. Thus, killing is a morally neutral concept or action. It is possible that killing might be moral wrong in so far as it fails to produce the most balance of utility. However, there is no prior and negative definition of killing—murder.

When it comes to the issue of the resolution drawn by the Rule Utilitarianism, it is also disputable. Where are the rules based on the Principle of Utility? What if the rule requires that the driver in that circumstance should divert the trolley since it would produce the best overall balance of utility? Those rules might be challenging our commonsense morality! Rule Utilitarianism might reply that these rules are made by prudent legislators or impartial spectators. They have figured out rules producing the most benefit for the society as a whole and put them in Code or something like that. People just resort to it to act and do not have to make calculation any more. Yes, Utilitarianism is challenging our commonsense morality in some cases. However, it does not matter. The reason is that commonsense morality is unsystematic, incoherent, and thus, undependable. Commonsense morality resorts to intuitions, religious literatures, and the so-called Deontology. However, in some cases these three sources might deliver three conflicting rules. As a result, people would face moral dilemma. However, Utilitarianism has provided comprehensive, coherent, and dependable rules for people to live a moral life. On the Utilitarian ground, people can always figure out a decisive solution to certain cases and there would be no moral dilemma any more.

51due留学教育原创版权郑重声明：原创优秀代写范文源自编辑创作，未经官方许可，网站谢绝转载。对于侵权行为，未经同意的情况下，51Due有权追究法律责任。主要业务有essay代写、assignment代写、paper代写、作业代写服务。

51due为留学生提供最好的作业代写服务，亲们可以进入主页了解和获取更多代写范文提供作业代写服务，详情可以咨询我们的客服QQ：800020041。