Discuss the ethical ramifications of P. Foot’s Trolley Problem.

To answer this question there are two areas of focus – structure and content. For a philosophy essay it is important that each point follows a logical progression; one paragraph will lead nicely onto the next – like a vertical puzzle. While structure may not seem important, if an essay isn’t phrased clearly then it’s an easy way to lose marks!
As with any essay you would start with an Introduction:-         In the introduction you might describe the origins and basic content of the problem.-         At higher levels you should outline the different aspects of the problem that you will analyse, as well as the direction that the essay will take.-         Don’t spend too long describing the problem; answer as if the examiner has a basic knowledge of the issue but make it clear that you understand exactly what the problem is.-         The introduction should be short because the main bulk of your time should be spent on expanding on the argument rather than describing what you’re going to write.-         It is better to be concise rather than wasting time filling out bulky descriptions:
e.g. The Trolley problem, outlined by Phillipa Foot in 1967, considers the ethical value of human life. In this problem a bystander is given the choice of acting and taking one life, thereby saving five, or remaining inactive and allowing five lives to be lost. This essay will consider which is the most ethical course of action by examining the issues from both a deontological and utilitarian perspective.
Next you need at least 2 key points, in this case a deontological perspective and a utilitarian perspective.-         In this part of the essay it’s important to use key vocabulary, this can often make the essay more concise and it also shows a greater depth of understanding.-         When possible show both sides of an issue, both pros and cons so to speak, as this adds depth to the essay.
Point 11.      Outline the problem that is being solved (in this case by utilitarianism)2.      How is it solved3.      Is it solved successfully?4.      Counter argue (ideally with a point related to deontology as this leads nicely onto the second key point)
Example:1. The primary concern here is whether five lives are innately more valuable than one. 2. Utilitarianism proposes a solution to this which, at face value, seems simple. The primary premise of this ethical theory is ‘the greatest good for the greatest number’, and in this situation good would equal life and bad would equal death. Following this ideology, it is easy to say that the bystander should flip the switch to change the track. A utilitarian might think that this is the best course of action because it causes the greatest good for the greater number as it allows a net life of four, and when life is equal to good, then that equates to a net good.                3. This solution is, however, rather simplistic. There are several aspects of the problem that it cannot solve; for example, it doesn’t consider that perhaps the five men are orphaned, lonely bachelors, whereas the one man might live a life filled with family and friends. 4. The criteria we use to determine the net positive result is impossible to use practically because a bystander cannot know the full ramifications of either action. Furthermore, there is no attempt to question if there is a relevant moral distinction between killing and letting die, a distinction which many would believe exists.-         This final point has been included because the distinction between killing and letting die can be discussed using deontology, as this theory believes there are set moral values – absolutist.
Point 2-         Using the lead from the previous paragraph you would then move on to discuss how deontology could solve the problem/ if deontology could solve the problem more effectively than utilitarianism.
Finally, having thoroughly examined the problem, you need a conclusion:-         A conclusion shouldn’t include any original points, it should reference the points previously stated in the essays whilst summarising the conclusions you reached.