Week 2-Post 3

 I found this weeks learning very interesting. Unlike the first week, I got to think about moral reasoning in real life situations. Which I thought was better than the theoretical exercises, because these were situations that actually happened, and some were taken up in court so they were even evaluated by professionals. This deepened my understanding of the role moral reasoning and philosophy plays in real life. I am glad to have learned this, because now I feel like in the future, the way I analyze decisions made by others will be different.

Questions for this week:

• When jurors found out that Ford knew all along that lives would be lost without repairing the Ford Pinto, they were appalled. Would the juror's opinions change if they were the ones in Ford's situation? So would their moral reasoning shift once their circumstances shift? Then would they understand why the company did what they did?
• Are we asking too much when saying that a monetary value should not be assigned to a human's life? Or is there no other accurate way companies can use to calculate what they want to calculate, without using a value like that.
• When Edward Throndike conducted his expirement by asking people to name the price they would have to be paid to undergo bad situations. Was that accurate in terms of a strategy you can use to assign a value to something? And how does this relate to how you can decide how much money to assign to a human life?