Research done by neuroscientists has investigated which parts of the brain were activated when people considered the first two variations of the trolley dilemma. If we consider that everyone has equal rights, then we would be doing something wrong in sacrificing one even if our intention was to save five. She argued that moral theories that judge the permissibility of an action based on its consequences alone, such as consequentialism or utilitarianism, cannot explain why some actions that cause killings are permissible while others are not. Thompson offered a different perspective. However, it’s not permissible to directly cause harm, even in the pursuit of a greater good. This is sometimes described as the principle of double effect, which states that it’s permissible to indirectly cause harm (as a side or “double” effect) if the action promotes an even greater good. After all, pulling the lever does not inflict direct harm on the person on the side track.īut in the footbridge scenario, pushing the fat man over the side is in intentional act of killing. In the first trolley dilemma, the person who pulls the lever is saving the life of the five workers and letting the one person die. The former is active while the latter is passive. Perhaps there’s another factor beyond the consequences that influences our moral intuitions?įoot argued that there’s a distinction between killing and letting die. If all the dilemmas above have the same consequence, yet most people would only be willing to throw the lever, but not push the fat man or kill the healthy patient, does that mean our moral intuitions are not always reliable, logical or consistent? Inconsistent or are there other factors than consequences at play? Actions, intentions and consequences
0 kommentar(er)
