The next part took the basic morals in the first part of the philosophy experiment and applied it to real life scenarios. The first question asked was whether the bus driver should save one person or save five people. The obvious answer, to me, is five people due the utilitarian view point, which is a theory in normative ethics holding that the best moral action is the one that maximises utility and happiness. In my opinion, this is the correct way of addressing ethical problems because morality also lays within the consequences of certain actions. But then I put myself in the position of the bus driver and the one person is a family member or a loved one and though it is considered “morally wrong,” I would kill the five people. This contradicts the utilitarianism point of view, but highlights the fact that morality is swayed by loyalty and caring. I am loyal towards my family members and so my actions will not reflect my moral beliefs. This brings up the question, to what extent do emotions guide moral beliefs? In my opinion, emotions, sense perception, faith and reason are the most prominent ways of knowing when working through an ethical dilemma. Another interesting question that was brought from the philosophy experiment, was whether you would push one fat man onto the track to save five people. This is almost the same scenario from before, because it is saving one person vs. five, but I was put off from clicking “push the fat man onto the track” because of the action itself. There are two ways to address the situation, the categorical method and the consequentialist method. The consequentialist would locate morally in the consequence of an act, which means that a person would push the fat man to save more people. The categoricalist, locates morality in the certain duties and rights, so would view pushing off the man as wrong, regardless of the “good” consequences.