In this scenario, we have a trolley rolling down a set of tracks with no feasible way of stopping. Just ahead of the trolley are five people on the tracks with no way of escape. However, you are presented the option to pull a lever to alter the path of the trolley onto another set of tracks. Unfortunately, this set of tracks has one person at the end of it. The second case is similar to the first case, but instead of having another set of tracks with another individual on it, we are presented with the choice of pushing a person off a bridge into the incoming Trolley to save the endangered people. With this brief explanation of the cases, I will explain the stances on the given prompt above. For the first case, the prompt argues that it is…show more content… Consequentialist defenders would find the ideal outcome to be saving the five people. So, in both trolley cases, sacrificing the single person on the track or the bridge would be the result. However, whether you decide to save the one person or the five people, you do not know beforehand if the one person had a family, or if the five people had no family. In this scenario, killing the five people would bring a better result. But, it is unknown to us in the given situation so it is expected that we would not do that. This brings me to the fault that I see in consequentialism that, “[consequentialists] can and do make rough estimates of the values of the consequences of various alternative actions” (Timmons 11). This would make most outcomes that consequentialists come to susceptible to fallacies such as the hasty generalization fallacy. In this fallacy, one can argue that everyone would be happier by simply killing the single person on the tracks when actually he would leave behind his family. This would bring more pain to the situation which is what the original consequentialist idea tried to avoid. Therefore, this objection does not succeed because the consequentialism calculation for the best outcome is inaccurate since there could be more to the
