I would personally feel guiltier if I let the four workmen die rather than the one workman on the other track. Realistically you would not really have the time to think it thoroughly through on which is morally permissible in this circumstance, therefore I actually would not know what I would have done if I were the trolley driver. .
I took the utilitarianism approach with this scenario for the "greater good ". Many students also seemed to go with this approach as it "benefits the most " (Jaimii-lee's response). However after reading a few more responses, some made me reconsider my point of views. The other viewpoint on this was that "killing one is worse than letting 4 die ". After reflecting on that statement, I found it harder to make a decision on which path to choose as I contradict myself all the time. The utilitarianism approach however is not suitable in the surgeon's case. I would not kill the healthy young man in order to make the four patients live. I would rather let the four patients die from a natural cause of death, in this instance, illness, than killing the healthy man whose permission you asked, and his answer was no. Given that every case has vast differences in circumstances, it is difficult to define one moral approach and apply it equally to each circumstance. Thus I don't think that you could apply your morality consistently and absolutely in ALL situations of life. It really just depends on what the scenario is. However, some students were of the opinion that morals were universal and therefore could be applied equally to various problems sufficiently. After attending the lecture in week one, and considering the nature of the trolley problem, it was difficult for the class to completely agree on the right moral outcome. .
Week 2.
I believe Antigone was a "just criminal" rather than a criminal. Her motives for breaking the law were justified because her intentions were based upon natural law/divine law/God's law.
