Respond to one of these prompts and be clear about which one you are referring to:
PROMPT #1: TROLLEY PROBLEM. What would you do in the Bystander at the Switch scenario? (A) Throw the switch in order to maximize well-being (five people surviving is greater than one.) (B) Not throw the switch because that would be a form of killing, and killing is inherently wrong. Explain and defend your answer.
PROMPT #2: TARSKI ON THE LIAR. What is Tarski’s response to the liar paradox? Does the response tell us anything about the concept of truth? If yes, what does it tell us?
PROMPT #3: GRELLING’S PARADOX: Is ‘autological’ autological? Explain your answer.
PROMPT #4: SORITES PROMPT. Explain the problem of higher order vagueness. What should a proponent of the truth-value gap approach or of the supervaluationist approach say about the problem of higher-order vagueness?
And please also provide critical feedback to these two people’s posts.
PERSON 1: (sierra)
PROMPT #1: TROLLEY PROBLEM
In the Bystander at the Switch scenario I would most likely throw the switch in order to maximize well-being. If you do not throw the switch, you let 5 people die, rather than minimizing the number of people affected by the already-existing-danger. I think that by not acting, you still decide to let 5 people die, rather than redirecting it to one person alone. It is a hard scenario because no one would want to have to make this decision and killing one person (even if thats the only one that dies) is still tragic and sad to think about. Pulling the lever might make you feel like a murderer, since you actively pulled it. But not pulling the lever also may make you feel like you did nothing to “maximize well being”, as stated in the prompt. In this case, I would pull the lever because oit seems to be the lesser evil of the two. In both scenarios, at least one person dies, but better to be one than a group of five.
PERSON 2: (tara)
Prompt 1:
This is a problem I hope to never have. I remember learning about this in one of my Criminology classes and how my professor brought up Utilitarianism for why the switch must be thrown in order to maximize well-being (five people survive while one dies). Looking at this problem from the outside, I would actually elect to not throw the switch. Throwing the switch would put me in control of destiny which I do not like. I would be choosing the fate of six individuals. However, by not acting, I am definitely committing a “moral wrong”. By leaving it unattended, no one is at fault but by throwing the switch, I would become at fault for that individual’s death. However, deep down, I know if push came to shove, I would throw the switch. Just by being there and being aware of the situation, the act of not acting is ignoring moral responsibilities to try and preserve the most life possible. It is better to save five lives, than one life.
A substantive post is generally >150 words and introduces a new idea or is a meaningful response toanother person’s post. When responding to another person’s post, please either expand the thought, addadditional insights, or respectfully disagree and explain why.