![]() Principle, this can be summarised as not doing intentional harm. In this case, one should not act in either dilemmas as both ‘diverting’Īnd ‘dropping’ is causing harm to innocent individuals, whereas inaction merely ![]() Principle, which prohibits any harmful reactions, regardless of itsĬonsequences, positing that activity causing harm is worse than passivelyĪllowing it. ‘drop’ dilemmas should be identical, as in both cases one should sacrifice an Utilitarian principle, which is when people evaluate actions based on their netīenefit and seek to maximise the good. In both cases, the action would allow the group ofĭilemma, people usually respond in one of three ways. Push, or drop, a person off a footbridge so that the train would hit the fallen In another option presented, people are asked if they would physically One option presented is that an individual can flipĪ switch and divert the train to a different track and, ultimately, killing one Their lives can be spared, but only at the expense ofĪnother individual’s life. These scenarios involve a runaway train heading towardsĪ group of five people. Of Management and the Hebrew University of Jerusalem – presented scenarios to a Line between what is right and wrong can become blurred.īy people experiencing moral dilemmas, our research – the product of aĬollaboration between Harvard University, Harvard Business School, UCL School We often giveįundamentally different answers to serious moral questions and sometimes the Of people having different standards of what is right and wrong. Moral conflict is a part of daily life and is usually the result Would you sacrifice the lives of the few, to save the many? Illuminating research into people’s moral decision-making process and how this can help inform organisational strategy
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |