Outline and measure the honest issues disclosed by the trolley problem and illustrate your answers with relevant good examples drawn from English law. Utilizing a thought test (The Trolley Problem) I will analyse highly debated issues and look at the moral, moral and legal implications of each. Though alike and often mixed up, there are distinctions between ethics and morals. Morals tend to fluctuate between individuals while ethics is a "prescriptive code". To assist me illustrate these differences and various approaches when dealing with such sensitive moral and moral dilemmas I'll use the ideas of visible legal theorists Lord Patrick Devlin and Herbert Lionel Adolphus Hart. Both of whom handled moralism and paternalism. However I've chosen both of these theorists as they represent totally different factors of view of how exactly we as individuals as a world should take on these problems; this is exactly what I intend to elucidate throughout my essay.
As I mentioned I'll now use the trolley problem developed by Philippa Foot to evaluate the issues facing ethical issues and the theories developed to attempt to create a remedy to them. The trolley problem; a trolley is running uncontrollable down a trail yet, in the trolley's immediate route there are five people who have been tied to the track. Fortunately, it is possible to flip a move and lead the trolley down another track and steer clear of the group. However, there is a person linked with that keep track of too. Should an individual flip the switch? For purpose of the thought experiment participants are told that we now have no other alternatives e. g. preventing the trolley, freeing the people tied to the track etc. The sole possible options are to guarantee the trolley remains on a single track resulting in the trolley undoubtedly eradicating five people linked with the trail or flipping the switch and therefore be in charge of the death of the person tied to the choice track. The options are; either not play aside in the fatality of five or prevent their deaths by flipping the move and actively play aside in the death of one. This problem creates a moral dilemma as they raise ethical decisions which lead to benefits which should never be without negative implications. The results of the decisions made of these problems can never be seen as definitively just or wrong
Using both possible actions for the participant disclosed by the trolley problem I will now clarify the theories of Lord Patrick Devlin and H. L. A. Hart, I am going to then subsequently relate these to the condition in hand. Firstly Hart as a Totalitarian thought that an person has rights and for that reason wouldn't normally have found it suitable to end an individual's life by flipping the turn to save the life's of five. Hart's theory would imagine it morally incorrect to willing get rid of one person to save lots of five people; we have no right to hinder the lives of others regardless of what the results may be. The Totalitarian approach in a sociological sense and in framework with the test would not focus on the possible effects as it deeds it immoral to weigh up the pros and downsides of a disagreement involving human being life.
In compare Devlin is a Utilitarian and would see the flip aspect to the argument. Instead of focusing on the individual this process will assess the actual effect of each decision; the decision leading to the best final result is the moral way to choose. A participant following ideas of the theory would choose the choice which maximises and produces the best final result for the group, described by Philippa Foot (1978) as "the greatest good for the best number of people". This rule is known as the "greatest delight process" again developed by Philippa Foot (1978). Applying this theory in the trolley problem would therefore lead to the participant choosing to flip the switch. Although in so doing he/she would be positively taking part in the getting rid of of the average person on the next track, they would justify their activities; saving the life of five is greater than the life of one. Although it may appear ethically wrong to choose and choose who survives in such a manner the utilitarian way has reasoning behind it's theory; "Utilitarianism is a suggested theoretical framework for morality, predicated on quantitative maximisation of some definition of "utility for world or mankind" (The Indological). This approach is often misinterpreted, it isn't necessarily how it is mentioned with your choice always in favour of the "greatest amount" although it can be the situation for a big percentage of conditions including these dilemmas. In fact it is not always the higher number which prevails but actually the greatest happiness. For instance if I experienced 100 containers of normal water and there were 100 people who weren't in immediate need of a glass or two but would simply like one with regard to it, whereas on the other hands there have been 50 people who frantically needed a drink then if following utilitarian approach I'd ensure the later would receive the refreshments.
It would be misleading and uninformative to go over the moral and ethical problems of these dilemmas without like the legal implications and the difference between moral and legal guidelines:
"If someone does indeed something forbidden by moral guidelines or fails to do what they require, the fact that he performed so unintentionally and in spite of every care is an excuse from moral blame; whereas a legal system or custom may have guidelines of rigorous 'responsibility' under which those have cracked the rules unintentionally and without 'mistake' may be liable by abuse" (p168 +169 The Concept of Law)
Here H. L. A. Hart points out that an individual may be accountable by law if he unintentionally broke rules which are defined in regulation as incorrect however if he was to brake rules which are seen in modern culture as morally incorrect there might be a backlash from disapproving people however it is unlikely he'll be punished legitimately. To relate this idea to the trolley test; it can be considered morally wrong to not save the lives of five to guarantee the life of 1 but it might be legally wrong and therefore punishable to deliberately kill someone to save five.
The relationship linking law and morality is not a means simple or straight forward. Legal guidelines and moral rules both have show some likeness. Relating to Hart, they discuss a common behavior of compliance within the contemporary society where they are really applied. Moral and legal guidelines do differ: there are some legal rules that aren't moral guidelines and vice versa. In some cases the moral and legal views overlap which create the dilemmas I've mentioned. These variations between laws and morality are; law applies to everyone in a contemporary society whereas morals will be more of a personal view and can connect with individual sets of people within the society.
Now I've outlined the ethical issues disclosed by the trolley experiment I could now put the two theorist's theories into everyday context by using more tangible illustrations; I will be using the dispute of the wearing of religious icons in French state schools and an example of conjoined twins. Both which include moral and ethical problems, furthermore I will describe the affect they had on Legislation. These good examples lead to legal battles and debates in a legal sense to attain very hard decisions, much like the trolley problem a perfect final result for both gatherings is almost possible; one get together will always feel aggrieved whatever the results.
In 2004 the French Government earned new legislation banning all pupils from putting on ostentatious religious symbols. It is assumed that the French president performed so in try to safe guard the nation's Christian root base. This new legislation came into power not long following the l'affaire du voile (the veil affair), where three women of the Islamic beliefs were excluded from a university in France for putting on headscarf's. As a result of the ban Muslim women can no longer wear their Hijab in academic institutions, a Hijab is a religious practice and it is a piece of clothing worn over the top. This triggered uproar on the list of Islamic community in France and the rest of the World and has recently captivated attention from American Chief executive Barrack Obama who said that Western countries should avoid "dictating what clothes a Muslim girl should wear", (The French Observer) Muslims have the right to feel aggrieved as their commitment to their faith is being shattered by not being able to fulfilling religious methods. Do the France Administration or in simple fact anyone have the to prevent such a practice? They have got used a utilitarian strategy by looking to create the greater happiness of the higher good by banning the Hijab. The totalitarian would claim that the individual in cases like this the feminine Muslims have right to carry out their religious practice. I personally have the ban is discriminative against a minority of folks rather than an take action to lessen secularism in the French express school system. The education minister has is at without doubt the ban will stay in forced "There is absolutely no question today of excluding. It really is a question of convincing, " (BBC News).
Secondly I am going to use a good example of conjoined twins, a challenge of Religion Vs Medicine. A couple of from Malta emerged to the Manchester for a complicated delivery of these Siamese twin daughters who have been unfortunately joined up with at the stomach. These are extremely difficult deliveries and their parents felt their daughters had the greatest chance of success if the delivery was performed in the united kingdom. Adrian Bianchi, the paediatric doctor at St. Mary's Medical center believed thought it was necessary that the twins; Jodie and Mary were surgically separated. The pseudonyms were given to them by judge to safeguard their identities during legal proceedings. For the reason that; Mary possessed a much undeveloped brain for a kid this significantly into being pregnant and was also noticeably weaker; she'd not have been able to make it through without Jodie. Therefore the doctors wished to use surgery so Jodie the much better child had a chance to survive. Nevertheless the twin's parents were Roman Catholics and refused to allow the surgery to go ahead and did not give their consent on the grounds it was morally wrong to learn God and end a human beings life to improve the probability of another.
Without consent of the couple the doctors experienced no other option than to visit court and obstacle for the to surgically take away the twins. They used a counter argument to that of the parents; arguing that it was morally to try to save the life span of 1 of the twins than lose both. This is one of the extremely first cases of its types, the judge acknowledged the courts work to "put the welfare of each child paramount, " (Lord Justice Ward, The Maltese Conjoined Twins) but, nevertheless, chose that Jodie's right to life and chance of living greatly outweighed Mary's. In his leading wisdom in the Courtroom of Appeal, Lord Justice Ward reasoned "no other way of dealing with it than by choosing the smaller of the two evils and so locating the least detrimental choice. " (Lord Justice Ward) therefore her verdict ruled towards a healthcare facility. Passing from Family Regulation considerations compared to that of Criminal Law, Lord Justice Ward kept: "Following model route given inside your home of Lords in the Woollin circumstance about the opportunity of intention, one should conclude that parting would involve murderous intent for the doctors according of Mary. " (Lord Justice Ward). Here he's stating that the doctrine of dual effect possessed no program to the truth whatever the Archbishops endeavors to impose this perception. It is worthwhile noting that really the only judge to disagree with this view was Lord Justice Robert Walker. Despite his deviation with the majority the surgery was performed on the 17th November 2001. Mary passed on shortly after the surgery although to the physician staff's joy Jodie survived and went back house with her parents, however everyone engaged knew it might be extremely problematic for her to endure and she passed away relatively immediately after.
Was it moral for the Hospital staff to not in favor of the parents spiritual views? There can't ever be considered a right or incorrect answer however I favour the argument of the Hospital; if scientific improvements allow us as humans to give a child life in times where the life of the other would in the end end that of both. Therefore I believe it is in fact honest to "play god" by choosing who gets the best potential for success. The judge used a Utilitarian method of reach the final outcome deciding the best happiness of better good prevailed. By assisting this theory for the twin's circumstance I do not believe it correct for each case of legislation vs. ethics; each one of these problems requires powerful examining and an open head. I consider the physician staffs was right to involve law, regulation plays an enormous part in what's morally right and incorrect, moral limitations of law are not so rigid and these types of problems will test the ideas of ethicists and philosophers of law to what are the moral boundaries of laws.
References:
Philippa Feet, The Problem of Abortion and the Doctrine of the Double Effect in Virtues and Vices (Oxford: Basil Blackwell, 1978)
Utilitarianism. Available: http://www. indopedia. org/Utilitarianism. html. Last seen 13 January 2010.
Hart, H. L. A. , 1988. The Concept of law, THE UK, Billing and Sons Ltd
BBC Information. (2004). French scarf ban comes into power. Available: http://news. bbc. co. uk/1/hi/3619988. stm. Last seen 13 January 2010
The French Observer. (5 June 2009). French headscarf ban comes into pressure. Available: http://observers. france24. com/en/content/20090605-obama-tackles-french-hijab-cairo-speech-france. Previous utilized 13 January 2010.
Luke Gormally. The Maltese Conjoined Twins. Available: http://www. parkridgecenter. org/Page1544. html. Last reached 13 January 2010.
