The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a
Good One!
Scenario One
In this case, where the decision between having five children
potentially die, or one child dies, I would instinctively throw the switch
towards a single child. While this scenario would still be a very serious
dilemma, it would still be the choice I would make justifying it with the
belief that saving five children is more valuable morally than just saving one.
Rakowski (1993) shares, “Sometimes it is morally imperative, or at any rate
morally permissible, to keep alive as many people as possible.” However, this
decision is not made lightly, understanding that one life is no more valuable
than another. Nonetheless, more lives would constitute a better decision,
because there are a greater number of opportunities to enrichen the lives of
others as well as the environment and community from which they live.
On the other hand, the only other way I would possibly make another
choice and not throw the switch is if I was able to somehow determine the
quality of life the children would grow up to lead. Case and point: If the one
child alone on the other track were to grow up to become President of The
United States and the other five children would end up dealing drugs and
committing murders, I may not throw the switch. The only 'other' dilemma I
would have to deal with is a moral principle that informs me that all lives are
equally valuable no matter what, and I should not be the one to judge
otherwise, for there is a purpose and reason behind everything. Yet, Philos
(1995) states, “It is explained in the initial liability principle, that loss
should lie where it falls unless there is sufficient reason to shift it.” I
feel I have found sufficient reason. If I have the ability (choice/free will)
to do something, then I have the responsibility to do something.
Scenario Two
In this scenario, given the information presented and nothing more, I
would not throw the elderly man in front of the train to stop it from hitting
all five children. Instead, I would throw myself. If I were to look at both
scenarios and ask myself what the difference is between throwing the switch and
pushing an elderly gentleman to save five children's lives, I would say
nothing. However, given the circumstances presented, I would obviously be close
enough to the train to put myself in its path if I was able to push the elderly
gentleman and do the same.
Would there be a time I would choose differently? Would I not throw
myself, or push the elderly man and not save the children? Perhaps if I knew
that the elderly gentleman would eventually save at least the same amount of
lives or more. Considering another set of circumstances; had I known the elderly
gentleman had been diagnosed as terminally ill and only had a few days left to
live. In this case, I would need to have his permission to push him in front of
the train. In my mind, the elderly gentleman’s life is still valuable, and I would
still choose to throw myself in front of the train instead of the elderly
gentleman.
Scenario Three
If the child
on the side track was my child, my decision would remain the same for all the
same reasons, and under all the same circumstances. This decision appears to be
an example of Utilitarianism that claims, “Our duty is to promote the greatest
happiness of the greatest number. Five lives saved is better than one life
saved. Therefore, the right thing to do is pull the lever” (Westacott, 2018). I
still argue that all considerations must be a part of that decision.
References:
Philos, J. A. (1995). Sacrificing one to save many. U.S. National Library of Medicine National
Institutes of Health, 12(2), 189-200. Retrieved from https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12474847
Rakowski, E. (1993). Taking and saving lives. Retrieved from https://scholarship.law.berkeley.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2710&context=facpubs
Westacott, E. (2018, February 19). Would you
kill one person to save five?: Understanding the trolley dilemma. Retrieved
from https://www.thoughtco.com/would-you-kill-one-person-to-save-five-4045377
No comments:
Post a Comment