Philosophy Now Forum

Let's say that we have this train-conductor that has a choice of running over and killing this one person instead of the group of 5 people on a different track.

If we repeat this "procedure" infinitely, then these 5 people can put themselves in harm's way and "present" one person on the other track and in this way kill "infinitely" many people which reduces the group of 5 "cynical" people to a very small group.

Conclusion: Utilitiarianism is not plausible as viable way for ethics!

Link, Reductio ad absurdum: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum.

Unless someone can come up with a similar question but with a scenario that actually has some chance of happening in REAL LIFE, then the trolley 'dilemma' is not worth spending even a second of your time on.
Here's a 'moral dilemma' that philosophers can agonise over: You have just invented a time machine, but there is a catch. You can only use it once. Would you go back in time to kill Hitler? Or would you go back in time to kill Stalin? Killing Stalin would potentially save more people. Or would you go back in time to save unicorns from extinction?

1.This question has no answer. Each choice is right and wrong at the same way. 2. Why do you think that those 5 people should always be those same 5 people.
______________________________________
thesis writing service manager