Discussion 2the Trolley Problem Introducestwo Scenariosscenario 1 Th ✓ Solved

Discussion 2 The trolley problem introduces two scenarios : · Scenario 1- There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks.

However, you notice that there is one person on the sidetrack. You have two options: 1. A. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. B.

Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the sidetrack where it will kill one person. · Question 1: Would you pull the lever or do nothing? Why do you think it is the right decision comparing to the other option? · Scenario 2- The same trolley is heading straight to the five people. You are standing on the bridge with a large man. If you push him off the bridge, the trolley will be blocked. You have two options: 2.

A. Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people on the main track. B. Push him off the bridge to stop the trolley. · Question 2: Would you push him off or do nothing? Why do you think it is the right decision comparing to the other option? · Question 3: Killing one person by pulling the lever vs. pushing off the bridge: Are these two options different?

Why? Answer these three questions in your original discussion. The approximate length of an original post should be between words . Please use APA in-text citations of the articles read or websites to strengthen your opinion/ argument. SUMMARY ON NIH RESEARCH PLAN ON REHABILITATION 4 Summary of NIH Research Plan On Rehabilitation.

Students Name: Professors Name: Date. Millions of Americans have been found to have been with different forms of disabilities, which seem so severe that they face many challenges when conducting their daily duties, especially when going to work or taking care of themselves (Jackson & Cernich, 2020). many research has found that many people living with disabilities have been injured in accidents, born with disabilities, deployed disabilities over time, or while they have been affected during wars. Rehabilitation research conducted by NIH focused on exploring the intricate biology of disabilities. It perhaps sought to find lasting solutions in restoring some of the lost functions and helping people living with disabilities reach their full potential.

NIH's 5-year plan's main focus is to layout priorities in medical rehabilitation and guides rehabilitation medicine that will benefit many people. NIH research was based on qualitative evidence-based approaches that aimed to address challenges and perhaps generate consistent clinical data from various disability conditions where data sharing and translation will be encouraged (Jackson & Cernich, 2020). The main purpose of the NIH on research plan on rehabilitation includes studying the mechanisms, methods to improve disability challenges, establishing appropriate interventions to help most affected individual and families, provide the most applicable methods of improving, restoring, or even replacing underdeveloped, lost, and deteriorating functions among individuals living with disabilities within the context of their environment.

Additionally, the research also aimed to formulate ways in which disabled people in the community can be helped to participate in society building fully and perhaps be made feel oaky and satisfied with the quality of their life (Jackson & Cernich, 2020). The research deployed several questions focused on collecting data and other relevant details on the history of the families of people living with disabilities and symptoms and secondary challenges associated with disabilities. References Jackson, J. N., & Cernich, A. N. (2020).

National Institutes of Health Research Plan on Rehabilitation: Analysis and Progress. Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation , 101 (8), . doi:10.1016/j.apmr.2020.04.005 Readings & Videos for Disussion #2 Discussion 2: Decision-making dilemma: killing one to save five? Description This discussion is about the Decision-making dilemma. Sometimes, making decisions is pretty easy. You don’t even realize that you are making decisions.

For example, “Trust your gut: Intuitive decision-making based on expertise ...†However, in some case, making decisions are very difficult, particularly when it comes to human lives. Some philosophers worked extremely hard on the dilemma. Here, I introduce a classic case of the decision-making dilemma: the trolley problem . You will be required to make discussion posts about this case. Please watch the following video about Trolly Problem: The Trolley Problem (Links to an external site.)

Paper for above instructions

The Trolley Problem is a philosophical thought experiment developed to address the complexities of moral decision-making. This ethical dilemma presents scenarios that challenge our intuitions about right and wrong when it comes to saving lives. In this discussion, I will introduce two different scenarios based on the Trolley Problem, analyze the moral implications of the choices provided, and address whether the distinctions between each scenario justify the decision made.

Scenario 1: The Lever Dilemma

In the first scenario, we find ourselves in a train yard, watching a runaway trolley heading towards five individuals tied to the tracks. The option to save them lies in pulling a lever that will divert the trolley onto a sidetrack where only one person is tied up. Here we face two choices:
- Option A: Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people.
- Option B: Pull the lever and redirect the trolley, causing it to kill one person instead.

Decision Analysis for Scenario 1

If I were in this situation, I would choose to pull the lever (Option B). The reasoning behind this decision stems from a utilitarian perspective, which advocates for the greatest good for the greatest number. By choosing to save five lives at the expense of one, I am minimizing the overall harm done (Kamm, 1993).
This action holds a mathematical sense of morality: sacrificing one person for the lives of five can be viewed as a more justifiable loss. Furthermore, it's pivotal to note that I am not actively causing harm but rather redirecting an inevitable course of action. This distinction lies at the core of many discussions surrounding the ethical principles of utilitarianism versus deontology (Singer, 2010).

Scenario 2: The Bridge Dilemma

The second scenario introduces a more complex moral situation. We find ourselves standing on a bridge over the same tracks, this time next to a heavyset man. Once again, the trolley is heading toward the five individuals. We have the following choices:
- Option A: Do nothing and allow the trolley to kill the five people.
- Option B: Push the large man off the bridge, which will stop the trolley.

Decision Analysis for Scenario 2

In this scenario, my decision would be much less straightforward. I would choose to do nothing rather than push the man off the bridge (Option A). The reasoning behind this decision lies in the principles of personal agency and direct harm. Unlike the first scenario, where my action merely redirected a pre-existing threat, the decision to push the man constitutes a direct and intentional act of killing—a stark contrast that weighs heavily on one's conscience (Thomson, 1985).
Pushing the man poses ethical ramifications that hinge on the violation of his autonomy and dignity. This option breaches the moral belief that we should not harm individuals in order to save others, a concept commonly referred to as the doctrine of double effect (Harris, 2013). Such a direct action transforms the moral landscape of this scenario, resulting in a different ethical assessment compared to pulling the lever in the first scenario.

Question 3: Comparing the Two Options

At first glance, the actions in both scenarios may appear to yield similar outcomes: one life sacrificed to save five. However, the ethical implications differentiate the two options significantly. The act of pulling the lever involves decision-making that alters an existing situation, while pushing the man off the bridge creates a new act of violence (McMahan, 2004).
The disparity also lies in the notion of intention versus foreseen consequences. Pulling the lever stems from an intention to maximize saving lives, an indirect form of responsibility. In contrast, pushing someone off presents intent as the primary variable; it involves the straightforward act of ending a life for the sake of another, which fundamentally shifts the moral implications (Rachels, 2003).
Moreover, societal norms and laws often appeal to these distinctions; most societies endorse the idea that one may act to save lives within certain bounds, while also condemning direct acts of violence intended to achieve similar ends (Gert, 2005). This complicates matters when we also consider emotional and psychological ramifications for the individual forced to make such decisions (Bauman, 1993).

Conclusion

In sum, the Trolley Problem engages participants in critical ethical decision-making inclusive of numerous underlying philosophies surrounding morality. The difference between the two scenarios—pulling the lever versus pushing the man—lies not only in the numbers involved but also in the nature of the actions each scenario entails. In the first, one makes a calculated decision based on utilitarian principles; in the second, the nature of the action transforms the moral dilemma into a confrontation with personal agency and direct harm.
Ultimately, these dilemmas demonstrate the complexity of ethical reasoning, revealing that moral choices—while often reduced to binary options—require nuanced evaluations that consider intentions, consequences, and agency. Navigating such philosophical challenges helps deepen our understanding of human morality and the continual struggle to determine what constitutes the ‘right’ action in life-or-death situations.

References

1. Bauman, Z. (1993). Postmodern Ethics. Blackwell Publishing.
2. Gert, B. (2005). Morality: Its Nature and Justification. Oxford University Press.
3. Harris, J. (2013). The Value of Life: An Introduction to Medical Ethics. Routledge.
4. Kamm, F. M. (1993). Morality, Mortality: Volume II: Rights, Duties, and Status. Oxford University Press.
5. McMahan, J. (2004). The Ethics of Killing: Problems at the Margins of Life. Oxford University Press.
6. Rachels, J. (2003). The Elements of Moral Philosophy. McGraw-Hill.
7. Singer, P. (2010). Practical Ethics. Cambridge University Press.
8. Thomson, J. J. (1985). The Trolley Problem. The Yale Law Journal, 94(6), 1395-1415.
9. Woollard, F. (2014). Consequentialism, Ethics, and the Trolley Problem. Philosophical Studies, 168(2), 363-382.
10. Hursthouse, R. (2000). Normative Virtue Ethics. The Journal of Value Inquiry, 34(1), 41-54.