Scenario 1
A trolley is hurtling toward five workers on the track, and they will be killed if the trolley reaches them. You can pull the lever and change the path of the trolley, but there is one worker on the alternate route who will be killed instead.
Scenario 2
A trolley is hurtling toward five workers on the track, and they will be killed if the trolley reaches them. You are on a bridge above the track. You can push the large man next to you off the bridge and stop the trolley, but you will kill the man instead.
Doctor Scenario
You are a doctor in an emergency room. Six patients come to you who have been in a terrible trolley car accident. One is seriously injured, and five are moderately injured. You could spend all you time saving one seriously injured patient, but the other five moderately injured would die. Or you could split your time between the five moderately injured patients, but the other one would die.
Surgeon Scenario
You have five patients who all need different organ transplants, or they will die. You know for sure you will not get donor organs in time. There's a perfectly healthy person napping next door with all the right organs in working order.
What were your conclusions? How did they change from scenario to scenario? How did the ethical philosophies that you used change from scenario to scenario?
In general, how do you approach difficult ethical questions? Frame your answer using the Ethical Behavior Model presented in Chapter 5. What elements of this model can help inform your future behavior and explain past behavior?