While I would like to believe that I am
able to make the right decision most of the time, I know that it is not always
the case. In almost every decision in
life, there are extenuating circumstances that play a role in our decision,
whether it be past events, our upbringing, or certain values that we hold dear. When it comes to ethics, it would be simple
if there were clear black or white answers, and then it would be obvious which
people have certain moral standards and which don’t. It would also help the process of decision-making
become easier.
In the first scenario of The Train
Dilemma the train is heading toward five children, however, you have the option
to throw the switch to change the track in which the train would only hit and
kill one child. Now from sitting behind
my computer imagining this scenario, I would not throw the switch, as it would
change the fate of that day. The idea
that one life is less important to lose than five is not necessarily true,
however, the idea of creating fewer casualties is generally promoted. LaFollette (2007) stated, “if my behavior
harms others, then it is subject to moral evaluation” (p. 15). In theory, one could interpret this to mean that
if I pulled the switch thus altering the course of the train I would then put
that one child’s life at risk and I would be subject to moral evaluation. For this reason and the idea that it is not
my job to determine the fate of the single child, I would not change the
direction of the train. This is all
based on the assumption that I was not the one at fault for the train traveling
out of control.
In the second scenario, the option is to
push an elderly man in front of the train to stop it from hitting the five
children. This too revolves around my
making a judgment that the old man’s life is less valuable than that of the
five children. I would still choose to
not change the direction of the train or the fate of the children, which as
LaFollette (2007) described is morally consistent. If I did decide to sacrifice the old man to
save the kids then I would be subject to justifying my actions to others. As Lafollette (2007) explained “we should
treat two creatures the same unless the are relatively different, different in
ways that justify treating them differently” (p. 17). While I can justify that the older man and
the young children or inherently different due to their ages, I am not sure I
can justify treating them differently due to that different. Just because a person is older does not
necessarily mean they should die first.
The last scenario, and the most personal,
involves the single child being your own.
In this case had I chose to flip the switch in the first scenario and
killed the single child to save the other five then I would have a tough time
making the decision on this one.
However, I did not choose to flip the switch in the first scenario and I
would make the same decision for this one also, regardless if it were my child
or not. Now with that said I need to
explain that I realize these are all hypothetical situations and that I am
making these decisions while I am calm and level headed sitting at my desk, I
do wonder how my thinking may change if I were actually at the controls of the
speeding train. The pressure and stress
of the situation may take its toll and I may choose a different option out of
reaction and fear, but I would hope that I would be able to step back from the
crisis and make an informed decision.
In all the train scenarios there is no
good choice, either way, a person or persons will die but I am not willing to
change the course of fate and make the decision as to which person will
perish. While in my moral mind I can
debate how killing one child would be “better” than killing five, I’m not
willing to be the one that makes that decision.
I feel I would be able to make consistent choices to not flip the switch
or push an elderly man in front of the train just to save others.
LaFollette,
H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.
No comments:
Post a Comment