Kill or Let Die – What Would You Choose? You are on a station platform. An out-of-control wagon is coming down the track beyond the platform, there are three workers repairing the same track further down the line. They don't have time to move out of the way of the train car, the only way to save them would be to push the very large person next to you onto the track, the person's body will act to stop the train, killing them so but save the three workers. Both options seem morally wrong, but then again we only have two choices and in this case I'd rather stay waiting than push the tall person. Good arguments exist for pushing the person on the rails and for not pushing them. The argument for not pushing the tall person comes from the non-harassment principle which says that an action is permissible if and only if it does not harm others. Since pushing the person next to me onto the tracks below will kill them and therefore harm them, the no-harm principle seems to say that pushing them is not permitted. Since the act is not permitted, I should not push them. On the other hand, the argument for pushing comes from the principle of minimizing damage which says that when faced with two courses of action, you should choose the one that minimizes the amount of damage. resulting harm. Since pushing the person next to you onto the tracks will kill them but save the three workers downstream, this is the action that will minimize the resulting damage. So you have to push the person next to you. (1) P1) An action is authorized if and only if no damage results. P2) Pushing the tall person will kill them and therefore harm them. C) Therefore, pushing the tall person is not allowed.(2)P1) An action is...... middle of paper...... in fact, this thought does not bother me would not even cross the mind, I believe that identity is a powerful force in determining one's actions, if the three workers on the track were not strangers but my own brothers, I would not hesitate to save them by pushing the big character. Overall, the "do no harm" and minimize harm arguments are both unsound and cannot be used to ground my argument. decision on. Both options available are immoral, but based on the discussion in which I argued for my belief that killing is worse than dying, in a situation like this I would let all three people die rather than kill the big person. If, however, I had close relationships with the workers on the track, my actions would be different. This discussion focused on a particular scenario, on a much larger scale though, in which people continue to kill or allow other people to die in direct and indirect ways..