Create your own Trolley Problem!

Create your own Trolley Problem!

The aim of this assignment is for you to create your own Trolley Problem scenario and use it to explain Utilitarianism and at least two of its criticisms.

Number of Pages: 4-5 pages, Double Spaced 12 point font, Arial or Time

REWRITE POLICY:

–If you turn your paper in on time, you are eligible to rewrite this paper until you get the grade you want! Writing is a process and the best writers are usually the best rewriters. I encourage you to take advantage of this rewrite policy.

Sample Paper Outline

Explain your paper’s structure

Thesis Statement

Order of Topics discussed

The aim of this paper is to explain my own version of the Trolley Problem, the Peanut Butter Shark Problem. First, I will explain Utilitarianism. Second, I will explain the Peanut Butter Shark Problem. Third, I will explain a variation of the Peanut Butter Shark Problem called the Shark Steak problem. Fourth, I will explain how the Peanut Butter Shark Problem illustrates the problem of partiality and intentionality for Utilitarianism. Fifth, I will conclude my paper.

Explain Utilitarianism

What is it?

A level papers will draw and explain with a quote from the text. E.g., “Blah Blah Blah” (Bentham quoted in Ethics for A Level, page 666)

Identify your quote by using quotation marks “”

CITE where you got the quote from “Blah blah” (Mill quoted in Ethics for A Level, page 666)

EXPLAIN what the quote says. Do not let the quote do the talking!

Explain your Trolley Problem

The Trolley Problem works because it shows so clearly what the consequences of an event will be. Make sure that your scenario is clear. Is there a boat? A Plane? A car?

Explain at least one variation on your Trolley Problem

Variations on the Trolley Problem are one of the best ways to see moral systems in action. I encourage you to take a peek at the variations posted on Wikipedia to give you some ideas:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem#Related_problems

Variations on the Trolley Problem should connect meaningfully to a point you want to make about Utilitarianism.

For example, Utilitarianism suffers from an “Partiality” objection. How might you work that into your example? We would be more partial to others naturally. Utilitarianism does not account for that. So, perhaps put someone from whom one would have a natural paritality, family members etc.!

Explain how your Trolley Problem relates to: Utilitarianism.

What happens to a Utilitarian in your Trolley Problem?

There should be at least two criticisms of Utilitarianism discussed in your paper.

What would you do?

Explain what your own thoughts are on the dilemma. What would you do?

Conclude your paper

Generate a paragraph that looks remarkably like your first roadmap paragraph but it is in the past tense.

E.g., The aim of this paper was to explain my own version of the Trolley Problem, the Peanut Butter Shark Problem. First, I explained Utilitarianism. Second, I explained the Peanut Butter Shark Problem. Third, I explained a variation of the Peanut Butter Shark Problem called the Shark Steak problem. Fourth, I explained how the Peanut Butter Shark Problem illustrated the problem of partiality for Utilitarianism. The variation Shark Steak Problem illustrated the problem of partiality for Utilitarianism. Fifth, I will conclude my paper.

GRADING RUBRIC

Category

Description

Weight (100 pts)

Organization

Paper is structured according to assignment.

Did you compose a Thesis Statement? Roadmap Paragraph? Closing Paragraph?

Is your discussion of topics logical?

20 points

Mechanics

The nuts and bolts of writing! This includes: grammar, punctuation, typos, verb and pronoun agreement, etc.

25 points

Style

How was the paper written? This includes: proper clarity, focus, sentence structure, etc.

25 points

Substance

Did you respond to the prompt? How substantial are the explanations given? Do these explanations communicate clearly and effectively? Has the student merely “answered the question” or has the student “questioned the answer”. Great marks in this category involve novel insights, clear expression, an understanding of consequence, assumption, and a tight connection between reason and evidence.