Problem
In 2010, Marcelus Owens, then 11, was an outspoken advocate for the Affordable Care Act (aka Obamacare). His mom had died in 2007 at the age of 27 after being diagnosed with high blood pressure in her lungs. She had lost her health insurance after losing her supervisor's job at a Jack in the Box restaurant because of her illness. Her condition was largely untreated because she could not afford medical care without insurance.
Her family believes she would have lived longer if she had had medical care. Some conservative commentators and opponents of health care reform argue that she would not have lived.
The point here is not whether you personally support or do not support the Affordable Care Act. It is to note that the Trolley problem is encountered daily by political leaders and business leaders. The choices these leaders make can be the difference between life and death, a comfortable life, and a less comfortable life. Political leaders and business leaders have their hands on the switch. One of my TAs, a medical emergency room professional, says the trolley dilemma is faced daily in the ER. Who has access to limited medical resources first? An older person? A younger person? Someone with a slim chance of survival? She says these life-and-death calls create great stress.
While some of the Affordable Care Act debate was focused on larger questions of the proper role of government (freedom versus order), other parts of the debate focused on costs versus benefits. Would the the Affordable Care Act would save money or raise the cost of health care? Who would be covered and who would not be covered? A real-life version of the Trolley question. Do we raise monetary costs for the five to cover the one with insurance or cover the five at lower tax costs and leave the one uninsured? What is just? What values should prevail? What is the fair decision? (Of course this is oversimplified to make a point about the essence of the cost benefit debate. It depends on what side of the issue you are on. Supporters argue it will cut medical costs while detractors say it will raise costs.)
The same question is raised when drone strikes kill innocents in order to assassinate a terrorist. Is there an acceptable trade off between losing innocent people and saving American lives? What is justice in this case?
These are not easy questions and reasonable people can disagree, but never doubt the gravity of the big moral questions about justice and competing values raised in politics and that real peoples' lives are affected.
Read the article above then answer the following questions with require a 300-word count.
For Peter Singer and the counterarguments,
• Define their view of what justice requires to address global poverty and the main reasons why proponents of each perspective believe their view is the right one. Be sure to also address the following:
I. What generations of human rights do these arguments relate to? And
II. What sources/forms of power does Singer use to make his argument?
III. Which of these views of what justice requires of you in the face of global poverty do you agree/disagree with and why? All student perspectives are valid if supported with reasoned arguments and evidence.
IV. Compare and contrast opposing views?