Seminar Two: Short Paper
B Macland
Baker College

Introduction: The Problem We are given two problems for ethical consideration. The problems are similar in some respects, but different in one primary detail. The problems are called The Trolley Problem 1 and The Trolley Problem 2. Both problems have a runaway trolley that will kill five people on the track ahead if it continues on its course uninterrupted. The first problem has a switch that will turn the trolley off the track with the five people on it and turn it onto a track where there is one person on it. By hitting the switch you will save the five people, but the trolley will kill the one person. Do you hit the switch to save the five, or let the trolley go and save the one? I would hit the switch and save the five. I felt that if I was put in the position of having to choose to save one or save five, I would choose to save five. To not act at all, to me, is still acting because your inaction still kills one person. It is better to kill five people over killing one person? Definitely not. Although I don’t advocate that killing one person is justified. My choice is simply made because I was given the option of saving one or saving five. My option was not killing one or killing five. Mentally, this changes the scenario. It makes me feel less personally responsible for the deaths. In the second problem there is no switch. The problem is made more personal by the presence of an individual. You are standing on a bridge over the trolley tracks, next to this individual, who happens to be very large. If you push this individual onto the tracks, you will kill him; his large body will prevent the train from reaching the five people and save them. I could not push the individual on to the tracks. This situation is different for me than the first situation. I am making myself personally responsible for the