Public Health Essay: The Fat Man Problem

The fat man theory was developed by philosopher Judith Jarvis Thompson, in 1985.the theory states that while walking near a trolley car track one notices that there were five people tied in a row and they are about to be hit by a train which is out of control. Besides you, there is a signal lever that can be pulled to divert the train on a side track but there is a person tied on the side track. Near you, there is a chubby fat man whom you are in a position of pushing him over the other side to land on the train track. The advantage of the fat man is that he will stop the train but due to the impact on his body, he will die. The question was whom will be killed to sacrifice the lives of the five men.

Is your time best spent reading someone else’s essay? Get a 100% original essay FROM A CERTIFIED WRITER!

Order now

The utilitarian concern was of great happiness or the greatest number, there was no difference. In each case for the five live, to be saved one life has to be lost. However, people find no reason of killing the fat man. Philosophers are intrigued more by phenomenon events that are simultaneously self-evident and inexplicable. The moral of the fat man problem have been set out spur on many occasions. The moral of the theory test on the most efficient utilitarian judgment for best possible consequence but where the consequence is the same either wrong or right even if different means are employed for those consequences. The moral of the fat man theory is to save most lives.

There has been the situation that the fat man theory have been applied. During 1944, German launched their new German V-1 rocket toward London. The British let the German think the rocket was on aim. Though be aim was more to the center area of London the British used double agent to suggest to the Germans adjust the aim further south. The southern suburbanites were put in danger deliberately by the government to save an estimate of 10,000 citizen lives

The Americans made another important decision when they deliberately drop atomic bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which ended the war and saved the lives. According to the author, most people will save the lives of the five men the use to throw the lever dilemma is that pulling the lever to save the lives of the five will not inflict harm to the person side track. Pushing the fat man will be seen as an intent killing, the double effect states that indirectly sacrificing one man in order to save the lives of the five would be wrong if we have equal rights. Neuroscientist says that brain activated when there was the comparison of the two dilemmas in most people they had researched on. If we pull the lever, we intend to save the lives of the five and thus our emotional feeling becomes differently by killing the lives of the five to save the lives of the five. According to the author, there have been many arguments in some actions that cause harm to be approved yet most causes the same outcomes. Only collateral damage is what to be taught during a military strike such reasoning is valid at its worst and at its best. Some other research that has been done most men would more likely to sacrifice the fat unlike the women though most people would use their instinct. Another study suggests that most people would kill the fat man after watching a comedy.

Some real world dilemma has suggested that there can never be someone so fat that could stop the train and argues that there is no need of killing the fat person. Even when people agree, there are many variables for the theory to be justified. Instead, they argue that the moral of the story is just highlights subtle quirks in our internal moral. In addition, some suggest that the theory is just a puzzle and that if it is followed in our daily lives we might learn something. The discussion and difference between killing and letting die have been thoughtful experimented and thus have been appearing in different forms such as the movie the eye in the sky that shows the future warfare. The argument suggests that the difference between killing and letting die is that if you pull the lever or throw the fat man to rescue the five men is killing the people, but if one lets the five die he would have let the men die. If one executes one man to save the five live, he would have killed directly the person. The movie uses drones to decide simple decision during a warfare. However, the ethical kicker was that at the end of the attack one person would die though he is a side kicker and this variation is replaced with the fat man theory. The movie plays are the role of changing the settings in most times and testing our response to these changes.

Killing the fat man sound wise but the decision, though, it is disturbing but the intention is to sacrifice one person in order to save more lives this best thig to do is not to walk away from the scene and let the five people die but it is important to kill one person to save more lives. The trolley problem reduces everything to test our justification in the moral decision.

There are cases where one is forced to choose one then save five another cases is where by there are six people in need of special drugs in order to live you have enough medicine to treat only one of the patients. The dilemma is to treat one of the patients or give a fifth of the medicine and save the lives of the five, surely number matters. Consider the five old otherwise old and near death while the other one would be the young vibrant man. perhaps you are David's parent and you have signed a binding legal contract at this point every justifiable moral factor is broken, and one does not compare anything to be equal and breaks the moral factor so as to save your child. David's parent would have given all the medicine to save your son. Since David is important to you more valuable compared to the other old sick men. This is because most of the ethical and moral value is broken due to emotions in justifying the outcome. In this case, the fat man's problem of solving the same variables via the same reasoning is questioned. Though there are cases that either theory can be applied.

Reference

1. Would You Kill the Fat Man?The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and WrongDavid Edmonds

2. McMahan, Jeff. (1993) Killing, Letting Die, and Withdrawing Aid. Ethics 103.

Would You Kill the Fat Man?The Trolley Problem and What Your Answer Tells Us about Right and WrongDavid Edmonds