How has neuroscience characterized classic Benthamite utilitiarian reasoning in situations like the trolley problem?

What is the trolley problem what is the point of such thought experiments?

The trolley problem is a thought experiment in ethics about a fictional scenario in which an onlooker has the choice to save 5 people in danger of being hit by a trolley, by diverting the trolley to kill just 1 person.

What is the correct answer to the trolley problem?

The only way to save the lives of the five workers is to divert the trolley onto another track that only has one worker on it. If Adam diverts the trolley onto the other track, this one worker will die, but the other five workers will be saved.

What is the significance of the trolley problem?

The trolley problem is important because versions of it have been used to explore the validity and range of application of the doctrine of double effect and the distinction between doing harm and allowing harm.

See also  Free will and hard determinism

What does Sandel trolley problem show?

For those unfamiliar with it, the Trolley Problem is a thought experiment in ethical philosophy (introduced to me and many others in Michael Sandel’s HarvardX ethics course Justice) that looks at how people respond different variations of the same moral dilemma.

What does the Trolley Problem tell us about the nature of ethics and the specific problems it deals with?

The trolley problem is a question of human morality, and an example of a philosophical view called consequentialism. This view says that morality is defined by the consequences of an action, and that the consequences are all that matter.

What is the ethical dilemma in the Trolley Problem?

The Trolley Problem sets up a moral dilemma in which one is to decide whether to steer the trolley in the first scenario, and whether to push the fat man off the footbridge in the second, so that one person dies as opposed to five. Those are the only options available.

How would a utilitarian respond to the trolley problem?

In all the trolley scenarios, utilitarians would favor whatever option in which the greater numbers of lives are saved. The moral value of an action is not in its intrinsic nature, but rather in its consequences.

How does the greatest happiness principle solve the trolley dilemma according to utilitarianism?

“Utility, or the Greatest Happiness principle, holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness, wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness.

What is the right thing to do by Michael Sandel summary?

In this 12-part series, Sandel challenges us with difficult moral dilemmas and asks our opinion about the right thing to do. He then asks us to examine our answers in the light of new scenarios. The result is often surprising, revealing that important moral questions are never black and white.

See also  What were Plato's views on substance?

What are the three main approaches to justice that Sandel discusses?

What are the three approaches to justice that Sandel discusses? 1) Maximizing utility 2) Freedom of choice 3) Cultivating virtue and reasoning about the common good.

What does Sandel mean by moral individualism?

Moral individualism, according to Sandel, recognises two kinds of moral obligation: 1 Natural duties, which are universal, and do not require consent. 2 Voluntary obligations, which are particular, and do require consent.

What is the good life according to Sandel?

Lectures 19 & 20

The telos or goal of the state and political community is the “good life”. And those citizens who contribute most to the purpose of the community are the ones who should be most rewarded.

What is one of the great questions of political philosophy Sandel brings up in this chapter?

This dilemma points to one of the great questions of political philosophy: Does a just society seek to promote the virtue of its citizens? Or should law be neutral toward competing conceptions of virtue, so that citizens can be free to choose for themselves the best way to live?

What did Sandel believe?

Philosophical views

Sandel’s view is that we are by nature encumbered to an extent that makes it impossible even hypothetically to have such a veil. Some examples of such ties are those with our families, which we do not make by conscious choice but are born with, already attached.