If I was given only two options: to either kill the one worker, or hit the school bus and kill five or more children, I would no doubt hit the one worker. I would be saving five innocent lives to take away one who put himself at risk. The children had nothing to do with the man falling, therefore, the children should not have to give up their lives because of the mistake the man may have made. Also, if I chose to hit the children, I do not believe that a jury would agree with my choices. I do not believe that a jury would take pity on me for choosing to hit the children over the one man. I believe the more utilitarianism option would be to hit the man as well. Utilitarianism works to maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. Utilitarianism would see it as better to hit the man because the children have longer lives to live and more happiness to be had. There are more children then there are workers so saving five children would be the better option. Also, if someone chose to hit the children, there would be five grieving families rather than one grieving family. Overall, to minimize unhappiness and maximize happiness in this tragedy would be to hit the fallen man and let the children live out happy lives.
If I was put in a situation where I had to either bomb a plant and kill ten thousand innocent civilians, or let them survive and have the plant they live next to possibly kill fifty thousand innocent civilians later, I would ultimately chose to let the ten thousand civilians survive and try to think of a different tactic to stop the plant. There is no reason to kill ten thousand innocent civilians when there has to be another way to stop the plant later on from making bombs and killing fifty thousand. If you know already that later on the plant will be making bombs, then now you have a heads up to make a plan to stop the plant without mass killing. If I had no choice to stop the plant any other way but killing the innocent civilians, I would choose to do so to save the fifty thousand people later. I would only kill the ten thousand innocent civilians if I knew 100% that the plant would be killing fifty thousand later. Utilitarianism would say to bomb the plant and kill the innocent civilians because that is the option that would maximize happiness and minimize unhappiness. By bombing the plant, you are saving five times the amount of people that you killed. There are more people that are being saved which means there is more happiness. Although there are ten thousand grieving families, there could have been fifty thousand grieving families so there is also less unhappiness by bombing the plant.
Even though it is against human morals, if put in the situation, I would torture the man until he gave up information about the bomb. I would give the man a certain amount of hours to give up information without force, and then after that I would resort to torturing him to give up the information. If the man gives up information, thousands could be saved in the big city of New York. Even though the man is being tortured, he is not going to die and might even serve less time for giving up the information. If you do not torture the man, thousands are going to die while the man who may have planted the bomb is sitting in a room knowing that he was successful. The theory of utilitarianism would say to torture the man to give up information about the bomb because that is the choice that would have the greatest amount of happiness and least amount unhappiness. Thousands of people would continue to live their lives and be happy while one man and his family are unhappy because of the choices he made himself.
If the man would not give up information about the bomb unless an innocent member of his family is tortured, I would think of a different way to get information. I wouldn’t harm one of his innocent family members because of choices he made. Although I would
Related Documents: Justice: What's the right thing to do? Essay
1/9/2013 Business Ethics Unit 1 I. Ethics is the study of the right (good) using reason, analysis, synthesis, and reflection A) Ethics ≠ morality (just requires that you know someone else’s opinion) Can explain using reason B) Universal Rule guiding behavior Applied to every decision II. Steps in process A. Identify proposed action (what is right/wrong?) B. Identify important dimension of the decision (varies by rules) C. Decide if the action is ethical 1. Ethical tests…
associated with democratic citizenship is justice. Having a fair and reasonable justice system helps keep our citizens in order and safe from harm. Creating laws for what’s right and wrong keeps society balanced and in order. For example things that are illegal are made illegal to protect citizens. To take it to an extreme, killing or harm on a person is illegal. If this law is broken there are major penalties like long jail time. We also value voting rights. Our society provides us with the freedom…
The law must also be a practice of a society where the society must know it and be conversant with it i.e. it must be publicized and open. Law cannot be retroactive and it must never conflict with justice at any time. It must be seen to instill the correct values in the society and aim to get justice to all that are wronged. In addition law must be owned by the society it administers in that it regulates the society holistically. Freedom on the other hand is a state where individuals are liberated…
and sound judgement. When a person enlists into the military life, they swear to obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over them, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. Therefore, military discipline should be a priority in every soldiers life to give respect to the higher ranking personnel, like the Chain of Command or the Non Commission Officer Support Channel. The Chain of Command provides a method of showing…
the defendant for not taking the stand, as well as the theories of punishment that would apply to this case and why they apply to this example. 1. At what stage in the criminal justice process does double jeopardy attach itself to proceedings? Why? Explain. The follow is a direct excerpt from the Crime and justice in America E-book, “Jeopardy attaches at a defendant’s trial when the jury is empaneled or, in non-jury case, when the first witness is sworn in. The trial needs to go further to judgment…
ones own perception can be pertained. The definition of morality varies but this one would probably be the most accurate definition, ‘P rinciples concerning the distinction between right and wrong or good and bad behavior’. Different societies have different moral codes. In a sense, morals can relate to the study of what people perceive to be right and what can generally seem done due to a group, society, or a culture. In general, morals correspond to what actually can condone in a society. Morals ca…
to support the idea that abortions are not wrong? One person’s right to life doesn’t guarantee his right to something than doesn’t belong to him. It is your kindness if you don’t unplug from the violinist, not something you owe him. Right to life consist not in the right not to be killed, but rather in the right not to be killed unjustly. Being responsible for the presence of the fetus doesn’t implies that the mother gives the right to her body to the fetus or anyone else. Burglar’s case. Thus performing…
Santarsiero 1 Melissa Santarsiero Professor Umoh PHIL203ID8W2,Ethics March 25, 2015 Assignment 2 Chapters 4 and 5: Justice What’s The Right Thing To Do? This article is based solely on the reaction of two photos depicting the same scene of people attempting to survive a natural disaster at whatever means necessary. In other words, human instinct mode translated into racial bias. The reaction this provokes is honestly that I find it nonsensical that the subject of racial bias still is relative subject matter today…
When we think about criminals we want nothing to do with them. The majority of us wouldn’t want a high grade criminal to even be alive, but is that truly the best option? In the United States the death penalty isn’t anything new it’s been around for over two hundred years and counting, but of course things have changed since then. In the early 1800’s the death penalty was brief and very little to no discussion was done regarding if the person should even be killed. Now remember during this time…
mainly only for the consumer. Production will begin to go down. This is what’s bad though, because the moment cash stops circulating, things stop being made, and jobs are lost. FDR himself isn’t personally against a balanced budget. In fact, he was quite for it. He even tried to go back to that I ’38, but the country wasn’t ready and was sent into a mini-recession. The government must however do deficit spending when the time is right. When you create huge projects that are designed to give people…