05/17/2019
.:Doctrine of Double Effect & case of "The Trolly":.
This states that there is a morally relevant distinction between the harmful effects (or consequences) of an action that are INTENDED and the harmful effects of an action that are merely FORESEEN, but not intended. We can apply this case to justify our intuitions in the famous case of "The Trolly" in the case of the trolly we have to decide to either stand back and do nothing which will inevitably kill 5 individuals or we can involve our selves by pushing a switch altering the trolly's path killing only 1 individual our moral intuition would be to push the switch causing the death of the 1 individual but this is problematic for it is not in accord with our moral principle which states "It is better to act in such a way that harm befalls the fewest possible, providing that doing so does not entail killing someone" if we push the switch then we are in fact killing someone well this is where the DDE comes in to place to justify and put into accord our intuition with our moral principles. Since the death of the 1 individual is merely FORESEEN but not INTENDED it would be PERMISSIBLE to push the switch causing the death of the 1 individual to the save the lives of the 5.
Do you think that these definitions are correct and ultimately can be used to make moral decisions in any case where death might occur? What would you do in the case of "The Trolly"?
