Murder in House “The Tyrant” is not Justified in Utilitarianism For decades, the “Trolley Problem” has been used to shape our understanding of what is morally right and wrong, how we act, and how we should act. Judith Thomson, a philosopher at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, was able to coin the “Trolley Problem” and create the famous “footbridge” and the “switch” scenarios. In the “switch” scenario, as you are walking, you hear a trolley approaching five workers on the tracks; you are too far from the workers and would not be able to warn the five workers before the trolley reaches them. However, you happen to be standing next to a lever switch that you can pull to redirect the trolley to a different track where there is a man standing there but pulling the lever would save the five workers and also kill one man. What …show more content…
In the “footbridge” scenario, you are standing on the footbridge over the track next to a fat man while a trolley is heading towards five workers. If you happen to push the fat man down the track, you could stop the trolley before it reaches the other five workers. Do you push him? Many people say no because there is a difference between actively and passively killing a person. The “Trolley Problem” examines whether moral decisions are about outcomes or the manner in which they are achieved. According to the utilitarian perspective, both situations are very similar because they both produce the same consequences; in this case, one person dies to save five people. The same situation is called forth in House “The Tyrant” where one person is killed to save millions. In House “The Tyrant,” a man named Dibala who is a dictator of an unknown country falls ill from an unknown illness after coming to visit the United States. Diabla is called forth by the UN to talk about peace treaty after there has been a rumors about his plans of mass genocide. Diabala is then taken to