In comparison to other participants, what I found about my moral thinking.
My moral case was 50 percent balanced. This is a smaller percentage than the highest, which was 77 percent. This is as a result of feedback on the first examples, which differed from my expectations. Because of the ambiguity of the situations in comparison to what I believe, I was contradicting myself based on the questions. As a consequence, I've found that not everything we reason to be moral is considered so by those at different levels of reasoning.
Why did I offer the answers I did in the preliminary questions?
I agree that torture as a matter of principle is always morally wrong; this is because I believe no human being should be submitted to torture, not unless by so doing other peoples’ lives are not at risk. I also agree that morality of an action is determined by considering what total sum of people stands to be delighted by the given actions, as by so doing one is believed to endeavor to enhance the well-being of the majority. I also believe it is wrong to cause death to an individual when he does not want to die and it is more wrong to kill if it is avoidable, this is because every individual has a right to live. I believe too that I am obliged to save the lives of innocent people without reducing the total of human happiness and ensuring my life too is not at risk, this is because every innocent person deserves to be protected and cared for.
Why my answers in the scenario section;
In the first scenario, I believe I should turn the train so as to save the lives of the five people in the expense of one as by so doing I will be reducing the fatality of the accident. In the second scenario, I will let the train hit the five people and not push the innocent fat man to save the lives of the five people as he did not participate in any wrongdoing and him, therefore, should never be used as a savior when he is not willing. In the third scenario, the fat man being the perpetrator deserves to be pushed so as to avoid killing the five people as he is the sole reason for the accident to occur being that he tampered with the brakes an indicator that he was ready to kill and that deserves to die. In the fourth scenario, I believe the fat man should be tortured as that will give 75% chance to save lives of millions of people to the expense of his life being that he is determined to kill them.
How my preliminary and scenario answers compare;
My initial answers and the scenario answers were not consistent standings at 50% consistency score. This is because my beliefs in life contradict with some real-life situations as an individual should not be tortured but this can be done when by doing so a group of peoples' lives is enhanced and upheld.
How my answers compare to those of other participants;
My answers as compared to that of other participants in this exercise are not mutual and are contradictory. This could be because whatever we believe in life may be contradictory and the level of rationality may also have differed. The levels of understanding various situations and scenarios here may have also not been at par.
What the experiment tells about our moral reasoning;
What this experiment tells about my moral reasoning and that of other participants is that the application of morality in life is dependent on various scenarios of life and this may be contradictory to what we have initially believed. According to the experiment, what one individual considers moral may be immoral to another, and vice versa is true.
