Sample Answers
Learn How Manati Support Diverse Thinking
At Manati, we believe every student's perspective is valued. By allowing both affirmative and negative responses to be correct—provided they are underpinned by solid reasoning—we foster critical thinking skills that transcend conventional boundaries. Manati.ai empowers learners to not only find answers but to understand the "why" behind them, preparing them for a world where problem-solving is as much about insight and creativity as it is about knowledge.
Correct Sample Answers
Sample Answer 1
Yes, there is a moral difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man. According to deontological ethics, as proposed by Immanuel Kant, pushing the man is inherently wrong because it involves using a person as a means to an end, violating the principle of human dignity. Pulling the switch, on the other hand, is an impersonal redirection of harm rather than a direct act of killing, making it more justifiable. The Doctrine of Double Effect also supports this distinction—it argues that an action with a bad outcome (death) can be permissible if the bad outcome is not the intended goal, but rather a side effect of achieving a greater good.
Sample Answer 2
No, there is no moral difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man. A utilitarian perspective, as advocated by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill, would argue that both scenarios result in the same net outcome: saving five lives at the cost of one. Since utilitarianism focuses on maximizing overall well-being, the means by which the sacrifice occurs (whether by pushing or switching tracks) is irrelevant. The most ethical choice in both cases is to take the action that saves the greatest number of people, regardless of whether it is indirect (switch) or direct (push).
Incorrect Sample Answers
Sample Answer 1
Yes, I believe there is a big moral difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man because pulling a switch is way less physically demanding, so it’s morally better since it takes less effort. According to what we learned about virtue ethics, morality is about doing what feels natural and easy, and pulling a lever is super easy compared to shoving a whole person off a bridge. Also, Kant definitely said that actions are only moral if they don’t make you sweaty or uncomfortable, which is why switching tracks is ethically pure while pushing someone is basically a crime. Therefore, the less tiring an action is, the more moral it becomes, which clearly shows why pulling the switch is the right thing to do.
Sample Answer 2
I don’t think there’s a moral difference between pulling the switch and pushing the man because either way you’re helping the trolley, you are killing. According to ethical egoism, which we learned is about doing whatever benefits you personally, if you feel less bad pulling a switch than pushing a guy, you should just do whichever makes you happier. Also, utilitarianism definitely says that saving five people is more important than worrying about how you do it, even if you have to push like ten people off a bridge if needed. I’m pretty sure Kant would agree too because he believed that good outcomes are more important than how you get there, which is why he invented the idea of the "greatest good for the greatest number." Therefore, the two actions are basically the same morally and it’s just about whichever one is faster and less stressful for you in the moment.
