Everyday I try and think of something interesting to talk about.. and by the amount of followers I currently have, I'd say that I'm doing a horrible job.
So today I thought that I would ask my readers a question, to try and get you involved... and maybe to see who actually reads my blogs. I know someone is.. those 120 views are coming from someone.
In the many psychology and (and even sociology) courses that I have taken, time and time again this topic comes up, and it should, because many people have to face them in their careers everyday (Doctors for example).
Moral Dilemmas.
In simple terms it means choosing between two options, where either option you pick one benefits and another is harmed.
So here is my question (no I did not make it up.. I am not that philosophic):
"One day you are walking around and see that a train/trolley has lost control. The brakes have stopped working! You look further up the track and notice that the train is going to run into a brick wall if it continues on its current path. However, in front of you is a lever. If you pull this lever, the train will turn onto a different path. On this other path, a man is working on the tracks and has his earmuffs on (he can not hear anything)... he will die if you pull the lever. If you do not pull the lever the 5 people on the train will crash and die. You have 10 seconds to choose."
Without creating crazy scenarios and "what ifs"...
What would you do?
Please answer in a comment below.
Thank you for reading,
Angela
I would save 5 people instead of 1!
ReplyDeleteAs a major in Philosophy, I have dealt with this scenario many times over. I always find myself in a difficult position because I do not subscribe to the moral answer on either choice. What do I mean? If you choose the five people over the one, you are making a choice (a moral choice), a choice where you value the majority over the individual - most commonly known as Utilitarianism. However, if you choose not to pull the leaver, you are taking a Kantian approach - or better known as a "duty approach"; yet this is problematic because in your omission of acting you are indeed allowing five people to die.
ReplyDeleteI choose saving no one. Since I do not know the value of any lives in this situation - perhaps the man with the earmuffs is truly virtues man; or, perhaps the five people are actually criminals...why should I alter the already known outcome - they die. If they (the five people) die, it really isn't my fault, my lack of action is taken into account, yes, however, if I do act - I am causing the death of an individual, otherwise he would live.
Thank you for your answer!
DeleteIt is common for people to think up scenarios in order to justify their answers, they also try to place "what ifs" on the people involved (which you did for a moment, but ultimately your answer was not based on this). Such as the example of what if they were criminals, what if they are children, what if the man on the tracks is sick with cancer.. when in reality.. if you were placed in the situation, you would know none if this, nor would you be able to find out within ten seconds.
This actually bothers a lot of people when they are deciding what they would do, because all they know is that they are either going to kill an innocent man who is just doing his job, or they are going to let five others die when they have the power to save them.
I would love to hear more answers/discussion!