A Twist on Nick's Situation

In an earlier post, Nick mentions a terrorist who might be a threat to 1,000 people. If we were to “[seek] and [terminate]” this terrorist, we could stop the mayhem. Let’s change this up, though. Suppose this terrorist is the leader of a major fear-instilling organization. Now, we have one of two options: Kill the terrorist and any relevant information he may have regarding any future attacks, or press the terrorist for information. The twist is, the terrorist is the weapon. If the terrorist is killed, the weapon is deactivated and the 1,000 people survive. However, if the terrorist is pressed for information, potentially saving 10,000 or more lives in planned future attacks, the terrorist’s biological systems will detect he is alive and will trigger the weapon, therefore killing 1,000 people. How do we proceed? Kill the terrorist, save 1,000 people and wait for 10,000 people to die? Or do we press the terrorist, let 1,000 people die, and hope that the terrorist will comply and give us information about future attacks? 

Kill One to Save a Thousand?

To build off of our discussion about the trolley problem I am curious as to whether or not we believe it would be justifiable, as my title suggests, to kill one person to save a thousand others? The scenario I am inclined to think of is terrorism in the modern day. If, lets say, a terror plot was uncovered to commit another large scale attack on the United States and we were able to determine  who the mastermind behind the plot was, would you be able to justify the active seeking and termination of that individual in order to possibly save thousands of American lives? Would the number of lives saved necessarily have to be as many as 1,000? Could it be as few as 100? Or even 10? To further this thought a little more, could you justify "torturing" someone for the same outcome? Can you justify cruelty and pain inflicted upon one to save many others? Initially the logic doesn't seem to be all that different from the trolley problem but I am curious to hear what everyone else thinks.  

Trolley Problem

Today in class we had a very controversial discussion about the trolley problem and, at the end of the discussion, the bystander example was brought up. Although we talked about the decision of whether to change the track of the trolley as being completely up to the bystander, what if the decision could be up to the bystander or the trolley driver. This would change the scenario because, if the bystander were to respond, he/she would be intervening on the situation. Do you guys think that the bystander is obligated to intervene or should he/she walk away and leave the decision up to the driver?

How liberal should our "arts" be?

As discussed in class and in the post before, we are placing so much emphasis on getting a job right out of college that it would seem as if we, as a generation, are placing increasing emphasis on jumping right into your major and ignoring other types of classes. While this is not so much of a trend at Villanova, I am sure everyone can think of friends at other schools who may have had to declare a major as soon as they got in and began their courses for that major right away. We all like this idea to a degree because it eliminates many classes from our schedule that we deem to be unnecessary, but at the same token we all seem to recognize the value in a liberal arts education. While we may not always be enthralled by the idea of taking Ethics, I find this class to be more mentally stimulating than many of my other classes. To my mind many of the things we talk about really matter and I see an application for them in my everyday life. The principles of Ethics are present in all areas of life and it is important to contemplate them and understand them as best we can. Should students be required to take a set of core requirements that cover things such as philosophy and ethics? If so, would you model your ideal conception of the core requirements in a similar way to Villanova or would you change it?    

Where does the modern student attitude come from?

Today as we discussed student's attitudes and goals during college, we discussed that students are more focused getting a good GPA to then get a good job rather than actually learning and perhaps exploring new subject matters. It got me thinking well who is responsible for this attitude students have? It could be the students themselves, but I think it is more accurate to say that it is society's fault. Society has conditioned us to get good grades and do well on standardized tests, but they are never saying I hope students are learning a lot. Do people agree with this or do they think this student attitude is due to something else?

Positive Responsibilities

I was very interested in our discussion today on the Corporate Social Responsibility and the Common Good. I particularly enjoyed our discussion about positive versus negative responsibilities. Personally, I think it would be very difficult to promote a "positive responsibility" culture where we are tasked not just with doing or not doing various things outlined by law, but rather going beyond and doing those "good samaritan" things because we deem them ethically just. I wonder if we will ever experience a society which will not just applaud those praiseworthy actions (i.e. driving a fuel efficient car), but rather condemn us if we do not. If our concept of unethical actions was extended to include certain measures to promote sustainability, for example, perhaps we would live in a "greener" world. Do you think we can ever reach a point where people take on those positive responsibilities for the sake of living a more ethical life?

Enhancement Usage

The other day in class we talked about the use of enhancements such as medicine, prosthetics, glasses and so on. I thought it was interesting that most of us agreed that enhancements were not a bad thing if they were necessary to bring people back to a state of normality. However, I think there is still some controversy as to what society's definition of normal is. The way I look at it is, if someone is uncomfortable or unable to function as they usually word, perhaps enhancements are acceptable in order to bring that person back to their comfortable state. It would seem unfair to allow someone to suffer if there was something that could be done to help. Therefore, is it only unmoral to use enhancements if they are being used to gain an advantage over others? Or are there other instances you guys can think of that would make enhancements unmoral?