Exam 3 Flashcards
Facts of Accident Case
You can save 5 critical accident victims, and let the 6th super-critical victim die, or save the super-critical one and the 5 critical die
Facts of Transplant Case
You can do nothing and 5 die of organ failure, or you can slice up the otherwise safe 6th, pass out his organs and save the 5
Facts of Train Case
5 kids playing in one tunnel, 1 kid playing in separate tunnel. You can do nothing and an oncoming train will kill the 5, or you can divert the train to the separate tunnel killing the otherwise safe 6th and saving the 5.
Facts of Push Case
5 kids in tunnel, one fat guy by tracks. You can do nothing and the train kills the 5, or you can push the fat guy in front of the train and kill him, but save the 5.
What principle served to distinguish between the accident and the transplant? How did train challenge that principle?
In accident you can save 5 instead of saving one, and wont be killing anyone. In Transplant, you would be killing one to save 5, and you cannot kill one to save five.
Train challenged this principle because you can kill the one to save 5.
What principle served to distinguish between transplant and train? How did push vindicate this principle?
In train, it is ok to kill one as a foreseen, yet unintended side affect. You cannot kill one as an intended goal. In transplant, killing the 6th is an intended goal, as its needed to harvest the organs. In train, you arent intending on killing, if the kid escapes, you still can acheive goal.
What identical choice is faced in transplant, train and push?
You can do nothing and five die, or you can kill the otherwise safe 6th and save 5.
If the “one” escapes in transplant, you have to get him back. How is it important and related to train and push?
It is important because it establishes the intended goal. If the intended goal is murder, you cant do it. In train, you arent intending on killing, if the 6th escapes you are happy. In Push, if he gets away, you have to get him and push him , showing the intended goal is to kill him, and thats why you cant push.
What was gong on in our discussions of the 4 cases? What is the significance?
In the four cases we were explaining our judgments in terms of generic principles that reflect a system of values. This capacity for understanding, explaining and justifying our judgments is what makes us morally responsible agents.
State the three fault conditions
- the person must have done something wrong
- the person’s wrong act must be causally connected to the harm.
- consideration of this type of harm should reasonably have prevented the wrong act
explain the concept of Individually necessary and jointly sufficient conditions
Individually necessary is that each one is required. If a person fails to meet any of the conditions, he is not at harm.
Jointly sufficient is stating that together, they are enough. If the person satisfies all the conditions, he is at fault.
Necessity of the third condition, “consideration of this type of harm should reasonably have prevented the wrong act”
mother violates parole to take kid to california. Kid gets murdered by serial killer.
She violated parole and taking the kid to California are both conditions 1 and 2, but shes not at fault. She doesnt satisfy the 3rd. Going to California resultng in the death of her son is not something she should have reasonably considered.
Why is “must have intended harm” inadequate as the 3rd condition?
It is not a necessary condition. A drunk driver who intends no harm is still at fault when harming someone.
Why is “must have directly caused the harm” inadequate as a 3rd condition?
Not a necessary condition. If I hire a hitman, I dont directly cause the harm, but am at fault
What is the importance of the distinction between “did” and “should” in the third condition?
A drunk driver who did not consider the risk is still at fault because he reasonably should have.
