A634.1.5.RB
- The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!
How shall we live, as individuals in the face of
decisions about right versus wrong? How shall we handle those occasions when
none of the choices are attractive? Consider the following ethical dilemma and
create a reflection blog regarding what you would do when having to make a
choice in each train scenario. Justify your position and create a synopsis of
your position and the implications.
The
Train Dilemma
Scenario
1: A train is hurtling down the track where five
children are standing. You are the switch person. By throwing the switch, you
can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw
the switch? In the 1984 movie, Star Trek
III: The search for Spock, Captain Spock sacrifices himself by entering a radioactive
chamber to repair the radiation breach. Through
a glass wall he says to Admiral Kirk, “SPOCK: Don't grieve, Admiral...it is
logical. The needs of the many...outweigh... KIRK:..the needs of the few.
SPOCK: Or the one. I have been...and always shall be...your
friend...Live long...and prosper.”
(IMDb, 1984). You can look at
this two ways regarding this first scenario.
The switchman throws the switch taking the life of the one child and
sparing the lives of the other five children.
The five children are the many and the one child is the few. The other way of looking at this is a
sacrifice is made by the switchman who throws himself in front of the train
sparing the lives of all six children.
So, if I were the switchman, which course of action would I take? The way I look at it is I have lived 53 years,
at this point, and the children have many more years ahead of them. There would only be one family mourning for
me where there could be up to five families mourning for the five children or
one for the single child if I threw the switch.
My family is smaller due to the passing of all of my grandparents many
years ago and other older family members.
I could safely assume that the one child’s family had more surviving
family members because of his or her age.
The impact on them would be greater.
I feel that death would be instantaneous so I would not suffer. So, to answer the question…no…I would not
throw the switch, I would sacrifice myself.
Scenario
2: Same scenario except: You are standing next to an
elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and
all the children will be saved. Will you push him? This is very interesting. Now there is someone that has lived longer
than me and probably only has a few surviving family members. He has lived his life. What harm would it do, after all? Well, it would be murder. But wouldn’t pulling the switch, taking the
life of the one child, be murder also? I
am sure that the families of the five wouldn’t think so but the family members
of the one could quite possibly see it that way. It also could be quite possible that the
elderly man would take it upon himself to jump in front of the train. Now he would be the sacrifice and I would
survive along with the children.
Scenario
3: Same scenario except: The one child on the side track
is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children? This version reaches deep into one’s emotion’s
core. A parent’s love for their child
truly would over-ride ethical and moral thinking. In this version I might consider not throwing
the switch. If the old man was present,
I might even consider pushing him. But I
would only think this for a split second and again, jump in front of the train
sparing all, but myself. The most
important thing is to preserve my child’s life, no matter the cost.
Regardless
of which version of the scenario became reality, I am pretty sure that I would
react the same way each time. However,
not all people think like me. According
to a research study done at Michigan State University, “Research participants
were put in a three dimensional setting and given the power to kill one person
(in this case, a realistic digital character) to save five.
The
results? About 90 percent of the participants pulled a switch to reroute the
boxcar, suggesting people are willing to violate a moral rule if it means
minimizing harm.” (Navarrete, 2011).
That is nine out of ten participants!
I believe if they were given scenario 2, they would push the old
man.
What
truly amazed me was the number of participants and their choices. Maybe they would have made different choices
if it were children instead of hikers in their virtual reality. “Of the 147 participants, 133 (or 90.5
percent) pulled the switch to divert the boxcar, resulting in the death of the
one hiker. Fourteen participants allowed the boxcar to kill the five hikers (11
participants did not pull the switch, while three pulled the switch but then
returned it to its original position).” (Navarrete, 2011)
Sadly,
each modification of the scenario still requires someone to die. That is truly a dilemma!
I
realize that I may have created my own course of action based on what may have
been the expected response but that is my view of what is ethically correct for
this scenario and it’s variations.
References
IMDb. (1984). Star
Trek III: The search for Spock. Retrieved from http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0088170/
Navarrete, C. D. (2011, December 2). Michigan State University: Moral dilemma:
Would you kill one person to save five? Retrieved from https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/12/111201105443.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment