Discuss the case using the principle of Double Effect

Question

Greg has just one minute to make an agonizing choice. A runaway train is hurtling down the track towards the junction where he is standing. Further down the line, too far away for him to reach, forty men are working in a tunnel. If the train reaches them, it is certain to kill many of them. Greg can’t stop the train. But he can pull the lever that will divert it down another track. Further down this line, in another tunnel, only five men are working. The death toll is bound to be smaller. But if Greg pulls the lever, he is deliberately choosing to bring death to this gang of five. If he leaves it alone, it will not be him who causes deaths among the forty. He must bring about the deaths of a few people, or allow even more to die. But isn’t it worse to kill people than it is simply to let them die? The rails are humming, the engine noises getting louder. Greg has only seconds to make his choice. To kill or let die?

Question for Case A.

1. Discuss the case using the principle of Double Effect. When discussing, it is advisable to indicate the four conditions, then explain the case applying the conditions.

2. Is the Double effect principle that you applied the same as the utilitarian theory? Why? Why not. Be specific with your details

Answer 1

I will let someone else deal with the particulars but I say about these theoretical situations what Aristotle says in the Nichomachean Ethics, that what a good man would do is the good thing. But you don't know until the situation what you would do. Suppose among the larger groups was your family. then your higher responsibility to the family enters in. Suppose among the larger group were several murderers.

My goal would be to save all of them. You define that as not possible but that is you and not the situation.

maybe you jumping in front of the train would at least make the conductor sooner slam on the brakes and minimize the damage.