Imagine This...
This is called the Trolley Problem, and it was first thought up by Phillipa Foot.
The general form of the problem is this: There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. Unfortunately, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options: (1) Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track. (2) Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person. Which is the correct choice?
(Taken from Wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem)
My question is, what would you choose? Is it better to let 5 people die, or kill 1?
|
1
point
Kill one. Even though I would be killing a person and would never recover from the trauma it would be worse if i had to deal with the fact that i let five people die. Also I save four lives. (this would change if it means i go to jail) (not to be selfish but its a close call and that would flip the favor) 1
point
1
point
Here are the options when you logically break them down. (1) The deontological approach would say to let the 5 die because if you objectively pull the lever, then you would objectively be killing that one person, which is murder because he or she is, theoretically, innocent in the matter. Furthermore, it would say that humanity should be treated as a end in of itself and not merely as a means. Therefore, to use that human, regardless of how much good comes out of it, is morally wrong. Furthermore, there is a clear line of right and wrong in this ethical system. (2) The utilitarians and consequentialist view would be to pull the lever and let the one person die. However, a problem arises form such a view. Ethicists would argue that, regardless of which choice is made, both options are murder: you have caused the death of one person or neglected the five people. From these ethical viewpoints you are, therefore, guilty of murder for simply being in the moment, regardless of whether you wanted to be there or not. To continue that logic, then it necessarily follows that every person with this ethical belief is guilty of every crime that has ever happened because they have neglected their abilities to do something or have objectively caused something to happen. Moreover, from these ethical stances, it does not take into consideration the before but only the after: whatever happened to result in the greatest consequence is what is more moral. However, with this notion, then a lot of bad things can be justified: the Holocaust is one prime example. Therefore, in this ethical system there is no right but only wrong and moral integrity is lacking. --- Therefore, the deontological approach is the more ethical answer. That means to let the 5 be killed. It was not your fault that an act of God resulted in the death of those 5. Continued, to kill that one, then you would be guilty of murder. The end does not justify the means. As a side note: liberals tend to be the latter, while conservatives tend to be the former. If you find yourself being overwhelmed as a liberal by moral discombobulation from this argument against the liberal ethical system, then let me know and we can logically convince you to become a conservative even further. ;) 1
point
I'm very immoral in a sense that I don;t seek to do what's wrong or what's right I just seek to find a place I can exist and affect things as little as possible, whether that be good or bad. That said, I'd have to let those original five die. Not because of some God's plan, and not because saving them would mean killing one, but because in doing nothing I'm content with my own morality. The way I justify it is if I hand't even woken up that day, or had not existed in a sense, those five would have died anyway. |
