3PAGE PHILOSOPHY ESSAY. DUE IN 30 HOURS. FOLLOW INSTRUCTION STRICTLY!!

Ethical principles are guiding entities in human lives. Utilitarianism is a moral principle that requires individuals to act in ways that bring out the best in most populations [awkward word choice; ‘populations’ refers to groups of people, and utilitariansim does not aim to ‘bring out the best’; utilitarianism claims that the morally right actions is that which produces the greatest good overall for the most people in any given situation.] . That [unclear antecedent; what does ‘that’ refer to?] implies that if the utilitarian principle was true in people’s lives [the utilitarian principle cannot be ‘true’; one either is a utilitarian or isn’t, and use ‘were’ for the conditional tense: it if were true, not if it was true], then most people would not hesitate to save the lives of five people by ending the life of one person. The Trolley Problem leads the readers and the audience [what do you mean by ‘readers and audience’? the trolley problem is a moral dilemma; it doesn’t have readers or audiences] into the utilitarianism core issue since it describes a scenario requiring an ethical decision-making process. As a moral theory, utilitarianism oversimplifies ethical decisions [what do you mean it ‘oversimplifies ethical decisions’? and what affects the outcome? And, the outcome of what? This claim is confusing and needs to be explained] among other decisions, hence affects the outcome.

[A few issues with the intro: the essay is supposed to be about the film, yet your intro mentions nothing about the film; also, the intro assumes the reader of your essay knows what the trolley problem is, but you shouldn’t assume that; you should explain what the trolley problem is, but that should be done in a body paragraph, not the intro, and I don’t see a thesis statement; what is your thesis?]

The Trolley Problem presents fundamental tension between two schools of moral thought. According to the utilitarian perspective, the most appropriate action can achieve the greatest good for most people. On the contrary, the deontological perspective states that some actions, such as killing an innocent person, are wrong regardless of their consequences. The Trolley Problem introduced by Philippa Foot provides a landscape of moral intuition that presents different perspectives people use to divide wrong from right. Based on the two case scenarios [you haven’t explained what the two scenarios are; your reader has no idea what you are referring to] provided under the Trolley problem, [be consistent in how you refer to the trolley problem; if you capitalize it, then, always capitalize it] utilitarianism argues that it would be ideal for saving five lives by sacrificing one life than saving one life and sacrificing five lives. However, deontologists would argue that all life is precious, and that one man should not be killed to save five people (Fieser and Bradley). Psychologically, the first version of the trolley problem will go hand-in-hand with the utilitarian argument since it is morally acceptable to flip the switch, kill one person and save five people [but since you haven’t explained the trolley problem, your reader doesn’t know what switch you are referring to] . However, the second version [what is the second version? Your reader doesn’t know] leans more towards the deontological perspective because it is not morally acceptable [not morally acceptable to whom? Are you saying, YOU don’t think it’s morally acceptable? This is confusing, without an explanation] to push the stranger due to his huge body, killing him and saving the lives of five people. [this is a problematic way of phrasing this; a scenario cannot ‘lean’ toward anything, only people can. If I’m deciding between two cars, and I like one better than another, it could be said I am leaning toward one of the cars. The trolley problem is a dilemma that asks people what the right thing to do would be; some people might say pushing the man is the right thing to do; others might say pushing the man is wrong. The scenario itself cannot ‘lean’ in any direction because a scenario doesn’t have preferences]

Scientifically, our moral intuitions evolve, making us good social partners. After one’s birth, she or he is taught that violence towards other people is punishable. Therefore, our moral intuitions tell us that taking actions that physically harm others is wrong. Therefore, since the second version of the trolley problem involves physically touching the huge man and pushing him, it is morally unacceptable compared to the first version that involves flipping a switch. Based on chapter 8 of the reading [did you watch the video I sent?! Chapter 8 of WHAT reading? Your reader has no idea what you are talking about. And, Unless you are making a point about content being in a particular chapter of a book, you should not mention the chapter in a sentence. For example, instead of saying “In chapter 2 of the book blah….” Just say “In the book blah.” However, if you’re making a point, e.g. ‘The author discusses x in chapter 2, but since knowledge of y, which isn’t discussed until chapter 6, would help the reader understand x, an earlier discussion would be more appropriate.’], nature has placed human beings under the governance of pain and pleasure (Nodelman et al.). Pain and pleasure determine what we should and should not do. The intuitive and inductive schools of ethics [your reader does not know what these two schools of ethics are, so, without an explanation, this is meaningless to your reader] insist that general laws are important. Intuitive and inductive schools of laws moral of actions from individuals are not how they perceive their actions (Fieser and Bradley). Instead, it is all about the application of a given law to a specific case. of the trolley problem ought to be understood when making moral judgments and decisions.

Similarly, the Stowaway [‘Stowaway’, not ‘the Stowaway’] is a movie that tends to solve a twist [awkward word choice, not sure what ‘solve a twist’ means?] whereby astronauts are held up in space where one is restricted to one scenario, but other twists are involved along the way. [this is really vague and confusing; read this sentence as though you have not seen the movie; it will make no sense to you; for example, this: ‘one is restricted to one scenario’; one astronaut? What is ‘one’? and what scenario are you referring to? ; you need to summarize the film before discussing it] Based on a utilitarian perspective regarding this movie, the possible scenarios are not fully exploited [what does this mean? What scenarios? What do you mean by exploited?] ; however, it is clear that Michael, the titular Stowaway is not as qualified as the other astronauts. Therefore, since he is less qualified, the utilitarian perspective suggests that he should be sacrificed. [all of this discussion assumes that your reader has seen the movie, but you should not make that assumption; who is Michael? Who is Zoe? Why is there radiation?] However, towards the end of the film, it is a twist and shocking that Zoe is the one that withers away due to space radiation (Nodelman et al.). This case can be equated to the trolley problem, which presents the underlying differences between the switch case scenario and the footbridge case scenario. Since the latter involves using a person to reach an end, it evokes morality and ethical considerations. Treating others with respect for their rights, wishes, and needs are essential, unlike viewing them as subjects erode the good social partner aspect of life. Moral intuitions guide us; however, there are instances when they lead us astray in our decisions.