Philosophy Discussion Assignment Help

Philosophy Discussion Assignment Help

#1

Consider the following scenario, adapted from one described by the philosopher Philippa Foot (2002), and also discussed in your textbook (section 6.1).

Imagine that you are a standing next to a railroad track, and careening down the track is a runaway train. In the path of the train are 5 workers (let’s suppose they cannot escape the path of the trolley; perhaps they are on a bridge high above a ravine). You know that if the train continues on its path, it will certainly kill those 5 workers.

However, you see that there is a sidetrack, and on the sidetrack is a single worker. Let’s also suppose that you know that if the train goes onto the sidetrack, that single worker would be killed.

Lo and behold, you discover that you are standing next to a lever that can send the train onto the sidetrack. Therefore you are faced with a decision: pull the lever and send the train off on the sidetrack, killing the one worker but sparing the five, or do nothing and allow the train to continue on its course, killing the five workers.

Here’s an interactive illustration of this, taken from your textbook:
https://ne.edgecastcdn.net/0004BA/constellation/Articulate/PHI208/TheTrolleyProblem1/story.html

1. What would a utilitarian say is the right action here? Give the reasoning by referring to John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading, and be as precise as you can.

2. Do you agree with that?

Now consider this slight variation:

Instead of standing next to a lever that can switch the train to another track, you are standing on a bridge overlooking the track, and next to you is a very fat man. Suppose you can give that man a little push, and over he goes. Let’s suppose (however unrealistic – we’re just imagining here) that he’s large enough to stop the train, thus sparing the 5 workers; but his own life will be lost in the process. (Let’s also suppose that you aren’t large enough for that, so it would do no good to throw yourself over.)

Should you throw the fat man over the bridge?

Again, consider:

1. What would a utilitarian say is the right action here? Give the reasoning by referring to John Stuart Mill’s arguments found in this week’s reading.

2. Do you agree with that?

Did you provide a different answer to the second scenario than you did to the first for either of the questions? If so, explain what accounts for that difference. If not, why do you thing most people would want to give different answers to the two? (These are questions you might address in discussion with your peers.)

#2

Please carefully read and think about the entire prompt before composing your first post. This discussion will require you to have carefully read and thought about the excerpt from Mill’s Utilitarianism, as well as the Week 2 Instructor Guidance.

Tom Regan (1985) and Peter Singer (1989) agree that we have moral responsibilities toward animals, but disagree about the best approach to animal ethics.

What basic conclusions do they agree about (be specific)?

How would you explain the basic difference in their approach? Specifically, explain how Singer’s argument represents a utilitarian view, referring to John Stuart Mill’s Utilitarianism for the basic framework of a utilitarian theory of morality. In what way is Regan’s view a non-utilitarian one? Name at least one argument he makes that is non-utilitarian, and compare it with an argument from Singer that is utilitarian.

The aim in this discussion is to unpack the utilitarian approach to ethics, not simply our responsibilities toward animals.

Finally, share your responses to either or both of the arguments and any of the other material on animal ethics from this week.

When responding to your peers, consider what Singer and/or Regan would say in response to their remarks, think about whether what a peer calls a non-utilitarian consideration might be, after all, a utilitarian one, or vice versa, or think of strengths and weaknesses in their argument that they might not have considered.

Regan, T. (1985). The case for animal rights. In P. Singer (Ed.), In defense of animals (pp. 13-26). New York: Basil Blackwell.

Singer, P. (1989). All animals are equal. In T. Regan & P. Singer (Eds.), Animal rights and human obligations (pp. 148-162). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.

The post Philosophy Discussion Assignment Help appeared first on Essay Solving.

Write my Essay. Premium essay writing services is the ideal place for homework help or essay writing service. if you are looking for affordable, high quality & non-plagiarized papers, click on the button below to place your order. Provide us with the instructions and one of our writers will deliver a unique, no plagiarism, and professional paper.

Get help with your toughest assignments and get them solved by a Reliable Custom Papers Writing Company. Save time, money and get quality papers. Buying an excellent plagiarism-free paper is a piece of cake!

All our papers are written from scratch. We can cover any assignment/essay in your field of study.