PART ONE: Which is better for determining the ethical quality of an act: the Motives (what you meant to happen, but may not actually happen), or the Consequences (what actually happens, but you may not mean for them to)? In other words, is it better to live by principles (like “honesty is the best policy” and be honest all the time, regardless) or is it better to live by outcomes (doing things that cause happiness, like letting kids eat cake and ice cream for breakfast, lunch, and dinner until that doesn’t make them happy anymore, then move on to the next thing)? Is it always good to do what it seems will produce the greatest happiness for most (not all), or should another approach be found? Is it always good to live by an inflexible code of conduct?
PART TWO: In a trolley car emergency–If there were a scientist who would discover a cure for all cancers tied up on one track, and all the family members of everyone in Critical Thinking class tied up on another track, and the trolley was barreling down the track, and it could not be stopped, and it had to proceed on one track where the scientist was tied up, or the other track where the family members were tied up, and you were at the switch to determine which track the trolley would race down, which choice would you make? Why?
