How do we know what it is .......?http://www.justiceharvard.org/

Mr. Stevens' TOK groupWednesday 10th April 2013

“I can’t believe that the only thing wrong with wanton cruelty is that I don’t like it.”

Bertrand Russell

There is a runaway trolley car hurtling down a track. In its path are 5 people who will definitely be killed unless you, a bystander, flip a switch which will divert it onto another track, where it will kill one person. Should you flip the switch?

I think it is right to divert the trolley car to kill only one person

The runaway trolley car is hurtling down a track where it will kill five people. You are standing on a bridge above the track and, aware of the imminent disaster, you decide to jump on the track to block the trolley car. Although you will die, the five people will be saved.

Just before you leap, you realise that you are too light to stop the trolley. Next to you is a tall and heavily set man standing on the very edge of the bridge. He would certainly block the trolley, although he would undoubtedly die from the impact. A small nudge and he would fall right onto the tracks below. No one would ever know! Should you push him?

According to bbc.co.uk

1. Should you flip the switch?76.85% of people surveyed said yes(3814 votes cast)

2. Should you push the heavier man?26.88% said yes.(20320 votes cast)

Why the difference in the numbers of people prepared to make the decision? What is the difference here? Surely the 'maths' is the same?

● You are a transplant surgeon and on your ward you have five patients who desperately need a transplant to avoid certain death. One needs a heart, one a lung, one a liver, one a pancreas and one a kidney.

● A healthy young man comes in for a check up. The idea occurs that if you killed him you could extract the relevant organs and save the five critically ill patients.

● Is it right to do this?

● These scenarios are hypothetical and may seem far fetched, but such situations do come about ...........

Only four men survived the shipwrecked Mignonette in 1884. Dudley the captain, Stephens the first mate, Brook the sailor and Richard Parker the cabin boy. They were floating for three weeks in the Atlantic in a lifeboat. Richard was an orphan, he was only 17 at the time of his first long voyage. He went against the advice of his friends to go on this voyage. He went in the hopefulness of youthful ambition thinking the journey would make a man out of him. The only food they had on that lifeboat were 2 cans of preserved turnips and no fresh water. For the first 3 days they ate nothing. On the 4th day they opened one of the cans of turnip. The next day they were able to catch a turtle. Together with the other can of turnip, the turtle enabled to them to subsist for the next few days then for 8 days they had nothing. On the 19th day the captain Thomas Dudley suggested they drew lots to decide who would be killed and eaten, but one man objected. On the 20th day Dudley told the others to look away, offered a prayer and cut the throat of the Richard, who was sick from drinking seawater. They ate his body. Four days later they were rescued by another ship and the three survivors were charged with murder in the law case The Queen v. Dudley and Stephens.

● Did Dudley & Stephens act in a morally defensible way?

● If Richard Parker given his consent would it have made the killing morally permissible/morally justified?

● If the group agreed on a lottery and the cabin boy had lost would that have made the killing morally justifiable?

● If you were the jury how would you rule?● How would you appraise claims and counterclaims from

the defence and prosecution?● Bullet point the reasons for your argument and be

prepared to feedback.

In June 2005 a special forces team made up by Marcus Luttrell and 3 other US Navy Seals set out on a secret reconnaissance mission in Afghanistan to locate a taliban leader. Shortly after they took up position on a mountainside above the village where intelligence had shown the leader to be residing, they were spotted by 4 local goat herders. The shepherds were unarmed. The soldiers captured them and wondered what they should do.

They had no rope to tie them up and soon realized that they had two choices ..... to let them go and run the risk that they would tell the taliban of their whereabouts, or to kill them.

What should they do?

One of Lutterell's comrades argued that they should kill the goatherders. The group voted - one abstained and Lutterell cast his deciding vote and the afghans were released.

About an hour and half later the US soldiers were surrounded by 80-100 heavily armed taliban fighters. In the resulting firefight 3 of the 4 US seals were killed (Lutterell survived). Along with them all 16 US soldiers aboard a helicopter that came to attempt a rescue then were killed when it was shot down.

Do you think they did the right thing?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY