Would You Kill the Fat Man? Book by Edmonds

Table of Contents

Introduction
Summary
Evaluation
Conclusion
Reference

Introduction

The purpose of the review of Would you kill the fat man? written by David Edmonds is to discover what choices people have made, what influenced them, and how it can be evaluated philosophically. The book suggests that the unbraked train will soon destroy five people tied to the rails. If the train does not stop, all of the five will die; the situation is exemplified by the person who observes this and stands on the bridge with the fat man. Therefore, one is challenged with the problem of either saving more people by dropping a big man who can stop a moving train with his body or watching the death of five people. This mystery may show unusual, but it is merely a variation on a dilemma that has puzzled moral thinkers for half a century and, more recently, has preoccupied neuroscientists, psychologists, and other social psychologists.

In this book, David Edmonds provides the story of how and why philosophers have grappled with this ethical issue, sometimes referred to as the wagon problem. At the same time, he offers a fascinating and informative tour of the history of moral philosophy. Most people would find it wrong to kill a fat man. After all, killing one would have saved the lives of five. As Edmonds demonstrates, the answer to this question is far more complex and essential than it might appear at first glance. It is essential to indicate that the book will be evaluated on criteria such as how it teaches a life lesson and how well it is written. At the same time, the strengths and weaknesses of the text will be determined.

Summary

Significantly, Edmond also applies historical examples; he uses images of Herbert Morrison and Winston Churchill in the book. One of the key points is the justification for Churchills dilemma in the aftermath of the Southeast London explosion. Therefore, the proposed spur was potentially related to the Churchill problem, even though it had no haphazard effect. The author compared the actions of the British government to the activities of a man watching a train. A key element in the book is also that the writer explains Philip Footes theory that any right answer or action can also be considered incorrect (Edmonds, 2013, p. 14). Through Philippou Footes theoretical argument, the author leads readers to believe that it is possible to rationally kill one person for the benefit of five. At the same time, however, it is essential that Edmond argues that such a decision is not an intentional act and the individual does not want it, so it should not be viewed negatively.

The author also concludes that the period of time for reflection is very short, and any decision one makes cannot be changed. Thus, if a person chooses to kill the fat man, he will always analyze his solution and blame himself. Is it important that Edmond changes the current case of the dilemma in the book to fit new abstract circumstances? For example, they are explaining in more detail what kind of person the fat person is. Alternatively, it simulates another situation, if a surgeon transplants the organs of a deceased human being to other sick people, then it is considered a good thing (Edmonds, 2013). Although the original facts are the same, someone had to die to save others.

Evaluation

The book teaches each person to resolve the ethical dilemmas on which his or several others futures depend. This problem directly informed the moral reasoning of David Edmonds, who managed to explain the concept and provide a detailed analysis of the doubts that arose. The books central purpose is to delve into the subject and answer the central question: Would you kill the fat man? The text of the work itself does not give an unequivocal answer, but that is its main advantage. It is based on many philosophical concepts which allow one to form an opinion and respond easily.

Undoubtedly, the trolley problem is an interesting page in the history of ethics, important for several generalizations that are normatively and philosophically significant.

In pursuing the goal outlined in the prologue, David Edmonds identifies many valuable points, which are undoubtedly the works strengths. Among these are the doctrine of double consequence, Nagels counterfactuality and the Knobe effect, and the confrontation between deontology, consequentialism, and ethics (Edmonds, 2013). The description of the role of motives and intentions in the moral evaluation of actions and omissions and the questions of innate morality is also particularly impressive.

The author tries to explain the role of science in justifying ethical norms and those factors that can influence moral choices and the relationship between the emotional and rational aspects. At the same time, despite such a wide range of mattering topics, the book also has shortcomings. It is worth saying that Edmonds has said a great deal, but he has not succeeded in clarifying everything. The author did not set out to enlighten the reader on modern ethics (in its theoretical or normative form) (Edmonds, 2013). However, on the way to explaining why this topic affects very different groups of people, it would be entirely appropriate to try to systematize the readers ideas about ethics.

Despite its inherent flaws, the book is still extremely useful to anyone who has ever been on the road. Every day we make choices on which our future, and sometimes even the fate of others, depends. Reading this piece helped me better understand how different factors can influence behavior and what points to consider before making a final decision. I often make judgments in favor of the majority, but now I realize that this is not always valid. This book can inspire more than one reader to become fascinated with ethics, its particular problems, or another step in personal anthropological inquiry. After all, that is the main goal of any philosophical or popular science work, and it is thoroughly achieved.

Conclusion

At the center of David Edmonds book is a perennial ethical dilemma that confronts man with who to let live. This work answers many questions and explains how certain factors can influence a persons choice. It is a great stimulus to solve other ethical and philosophical dilemmas that are still unexplained. This reading is very significant because the author discusses the many philosophers who have developed theories about the moral principles of society, from Thomas Aquinas to modern experts. Along with the trolley problem, which is criticized for its detachment from life, more important questions of morality are presented: the permissibility of abortion and torture. The author also recalls the dropping of atomic bombs on Japanese cities. This book provides an opportunity to learn about different currents in philosophy and think about various ethical situations that are very difficult to answer and have been pondered by generations of philosophers.