Course unit: Essay Example

  • Category:
  • Document type:
  • Level:
  • Page:
  • Words:

Philosophical health check

Indeed, I actually made way through twice since I had not taken into consideration any screenshots. But there rose a contradiction in which I precisely contemplated that there should not be any need to introduce a price on other people`s lives, even though I stated that, I disagreed with the objective of raising taxes with the intention of supporting the lives of the less privileged in the third world countries of our dear planet. What I actually put forward as my point of view in regard to this matter is that my humble train of thoughts was particularly focused more locally or nationally rather than the international spectrum. This simply means that the act of raising taxes in my country would not be the overall answer to solving the health crisis menace facing the third world countries since this crisis is more defined by the levels of education and population sizes in those third world countries.

Should you kill the fat man? (The trolley problem)

Everybody wants to live and it is a right for everybody to live unless condemned to death by the rule of law. I argue that it is never morally right for any person in 21st century to decide the fate of another person. We are not the life givers hence we should never take away the life, changing the course of the train to save five lives but kill one person. This is greatly contradicted by the fact that we have no power or ability to define the outcome of both scenarios. Whichever scenario will result in death, no one will be willing to take self sacrifice. If you change course of train, you will lose five lives, if you push the fat man off the track, you lose a life, and it’s very difficult to make a choice, it’s a dilemma, a murder or manslaughter? Both lead to lose of life.

Should you kill the backpacker?

This is another case of moral dilemma. It is a case with the surgeon and the backpacker. The backpacker was not offered to any choice. The backpacker was actually not given any choice during the course. The act of not giving the backpacker the choice can be termed as not morally permissible. Everybody is entitled to choices at critical times. It’s true even if the offer was given; the backpacker would not at any time be obliged to accept the offer. Actually this test shared great similarity with the test “Should you kill the fat man”. Any choice had its severe consequences.

Get that chip out of my brain

It’s a case of soaking up technology over the years. Lightening hits the barn and it time cause severe fire that causes burning, this is the first question. This particular question of interest does not allow for the introduction of variables and actually it can be termed as a misleading question which prompts severe frustration later during the course of the quiz. From a different angle of view or perspective, I could argue that if the variables are introduced, then it could the barn owners fault for storing the contents in the barn that were highly flammable which lead to the diverse disaster. They failed in their minds to forecast the act in the realm of nature.

In my point of view, Becky is held morally responsible for her perceived actions even if they did not directly affect of kill in the hunter in whatsoever manner. She is the person who placed the explosives in place hence the act of intent was eminent. Her dear actions wee morally wrong to frankly state. Even if she had no influence over the avalanche, she was morally held responsible. There exists a wide difference between thinking about something and the actual action of committing that specific duty. Becky did both of these realms, she though and did the action of placing the explosives hence she is morally responsible.

In my view regarding the case, Professor Coine is morally responsible for the death of Bunny. Professor Coine was established to have no control over the assassination of Bunny Amore. But it should be noted that since professor Coine insured Bunny that the outcome (no matter the interference) would result in the assassination, therefore he is morally responsible. Huntington had no established qualms in assassinating Bunny Amore therefore he is morally on the wrong side.

Framing the Epidemic

It is important in how the question/decision is framed as it can change ones point of view on what the situation is. People tend to avoid what is bad and like what is good, it is morally wrong to wish death to people or to your self, I would rather chose decision 2, where people`s lives would be saved as it includes my life also, the situation is critical and losses must be avoid to be morally right. I am certainly held responsible for any death should I chose morally wrong decision since the situation will lead to losses of life.

Morality Play

In my view, I think since that I answered that I am not responsible for what happens when I fail to donate any sum of money, since there exist more need for donations than I have money and besides this, it would make me culpable for every other world problem that could easily be solved by donated money. Therefore this should never be the basis to prompt me to donate money. I also disagreed with the cancelation of surgeries because there exists the hidden agenda of obligation of being liable and being organized as a surgeon. Since you have already told a person you would save their life and having been appointed to it in advance means that they people are depending on you to save their dear lives. I feel it is morally wrong to abandon this duty unless in the times of the direst emergencies.

Valid or Invalid

In my view in regard to this case, I think I answered an argument is valid if conclusion necessarily follows from the premises. Since some potatoes are not fruits and some fruits are not oranges then consequently some oranges are not potatoes. This primarily objects that the argument is invalid since the consequential conclusion necessarily did not follow the premises to state.

Urn a Red Ball

I think I fell to prey of Ellsberg’s ambiguity effect since I chose the option detailing known probability of selecting the winning ball. However the option established itself to offer no greater chance of winning overall selection since my responses were consistent with each other meaning the intrigue letting me choose from urn B at the very first attempt was seconded with a probability of zero hence the result of incorrect responses at all attempts.


HOOKE, R., & DERHAM, W. (1967). Philosophical experiments and observations. London, Cass.

ZIPORYN, B. (2004). Being and ambiguity: philosophical experiments with Tiantai Buddhism. Chicago, Open Court.

BROWN, J. R. (1993). The laboratory of the mind thought experiments in the natural sciences. London, Routledge.

Philosophy Experiments . 2015. Philosophy Experiments . [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 28 October 2015].

9 Philosophical Thought Experiments That Will Keep You Up at Night. 2015. 9 Philosophical Thought Experiments That Will Keep You Up at Night. [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 28 October 2015].

Thought experiments in philosophy | OUPblog. 2015. Thought experiments in philosophy | OUPblog. [ONLINE] Available at: [Accessed 28 October 2015].