Activity no.

1 Introduction to Ethics

It is the argumentative discussion of the unified decision of the masses upon agreeing on shared ethical
principles. Countless philosophers have debated for about millennia pondering the current dilemma and
the upcoming crisis that will be faced in the era of future generations, searching for the right ethical
principle solution. There has been a discussion regarding the ethical consideration of the proper moral
actions: The article by SJ Beard titled "Deep ethics: The long-term quest to decide right from wrong,"
published by the BBC, contemplates the proper ethical way of living. The argument deepens as it soars
throughout the timeline of human ethics since its first emergence, showing each moral law's
development, applications, and flaws. Foreseeing the application to the 21st generational dilemmas

Is it morally upright to ram through a person to save five more people? The TV series "The Good
Places" introduces the trolley problem to assess the capability of a person to solve a moral dilemma;
hence, a flaw arises due to the threat of failing the moral code. The trolley problem is an ontological
dilemma as it gave an option with an equivalent value, or neither option has an overlapping value. It is
morally unacceptable for either of the choices. However, presenting a new kind of arbiter might lead to
more practical reasoning of choosing which is which. Redirecting the trajectory of the judgment based
on intention rather than the outcome, since both outcomes will lead to a person's death, considering the
new way of judgment will create an imbalance on the scale between the presented choices leading to
more acceptable reasoning.

It then tracked the timeline of the human ethical history and its application throughout the judgment.
Revealing the history of human ethics evolved progressively from a subjective base-opinion base-
objective base, and so forth; it ripened as the human minds developed a deeper understanding and honed
critical-assessing skills. One of the first considered ethical laws is equality, "an eye for an eye, tooth for
a tooth," from the moral code of Hammurabi, which is a flaw of ethical judgment because of subjectivity
and the absence of fair judgment. As time advances, the judgment matures into more objective trials;
The Golden rule is an ethical principle of an act of reciprocity which is a more humane moral conduct.
Hence, it is inclined to base the action of humanity based on their feelings and preferences, avoiding the
reciprocity of inhumane action towards others. Thus, if the higher authority implies their act of
preference as a moral law, it will be classified as subjective since the law itself basis on the higher
authority's golden rule of reciprocity.
Furthermore, the emergence of Utilitarianism and the universal moral code is a moral law applicable to
humanity without an exemption and contradiction. Numerous advancements have passed in
Utilitarianism since the start of the 20th century. As few classified it as consequentialism, as one conflict
brings more reasonable rather than harm, it is good; if harm is more than reasonable, it is not. Few
philosophers agree with the Classical Utilitarians' stance, particularly regarding the hedonistic value
theory. Nevertheless, the Classical Utilitarians also greatly influenced moral philosophy, social policy,
and political philosophy as the Classical Utilitarians are responsible for the methodical development and
articulation of this approach to policy formulation. It is a problem that is secular and perspective. In
consideration of the many over an individual, metaphorically speaking, five rocks over a rock will upset
the balance. Such an element will gain an advantage over the other since utilitarianism values the many
over others leading the argument back to the trolley problem, which is radical to choose to ram the
individual rather than the group of workers.

On the contrary, Kantianism solely focuses on the act of duty. It implies a fair judgment based on
obligation and truth rather than mere emotion, as it falls into the category of judgment in deontology, a
judgment based on the action that contradicts Utilitarianism. By re-presenting the central moral
dilemma, which is the trolley problem, both choices will be put to trial and plead guilty to acts of
wrongness as both bring death upon each individual.

In Conclusion, Utilitarianism is a preferable way of making radical choices applicable to the trolley
problem, judging based on the intention rather than the outcome since both outcomes of the choices are
identical. Perhaps considering the intention of choice will create a considerable gap between ramming
the lone worker rather than the five workers, using the intentionalism theory as the criterion for
judgment, and considering whether the act is morally upright or unacceptable. A lack of criterion for
artificial intelligence to be a program is related to the trolley problem since the criterion lacks
capabilities to create an answer for the algorithm to make a choice; therefore, the trolley problem is an
unfitting basis for an artificial intelligence judgment. It is a problem to bypass rather than make a choice.
By this point, There is still a significant absence of judgment and arbitrary variables guiding the
trajectory of the choices to a more clear and morally acceptable choice for the future, considering the
application of ethics to technological advancements.
Citations:

Mirnig, A. G. (2019, May). Trolled by the trolley problem - library.usc.edu.ph. Library USC. Retrieved
September 15, 2022, from http://library.usc.edu.ph/ACM/CHI2019/1proc/paper509.pdf

Staff, K. E., & Keen Editorial Staff Keen's Editorial Staff is made up of world-class writers. (2015, May
26). The evolution of the Golden Rule. Keen Articles. Retrieved September 15, 2022, from
https://www.keen.com/articles/spiritual/the-evolution-of-the-golden-rule#:~:text=“One%20should
%20never%20do%20wrong,but%20it%20is%20actually%20revolutionary.

Driver, J. (2014, September 22). The history of Utilitarianism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.
Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/

Massey, D. (n.d.). Kantianism - Indian Hills Community College. Indian Hills. Retrieved September 15,
2022, from https://webcontent.indianhills.edu/_myhills/courses/PHI105/documents/
lu08_kantianism.pdf

Hasa. (2019, December 10). What is the difference between deontology and consequentialism.
Pediaa.Com. Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://pediaa.com/what-is-the-difference-
between-deontology-and-consequentialism/#:~:text=of%20an%20action.-,The%20main
%20difference%20between%20deontology%20and%20consequentialism%20is%20that
%20deontology,the%20consequences%20of%20the%20action.

Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2019, June 3). Consequentialism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.

Retrieved September 15, 2022, from https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/

Siewert, C. (2022). Phenomenology and Intentionalism. Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Retrieved

September 15, 2022, from
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consciousness-intentionality/phenomenology-intentionalism.html