As we grow
up, we are more than likely taught that the moral or ethical way to act is by
doing the right thing. Do not gossip. Do not tell lies. Do not intentionally do
things to harm other individuals. The moral blueprint is laid out throughout
our entire lives. But, what do we do when the moral cheat sheet does not
provide a definitive answer? How will we act in an ethical dilemma where there
seems to be no good answer? LaFollette (2007) stated that most of us consider
the consequences of our actions morally significant. What if the consequences
of the action result in negative consequences no matter what you decide to do?
I am reminded of the movie The Good Son where the mother can only save one
child at the end. She must decide who to save and who to let fall off of a
cliff. That is a tough decision and one that none of us hope we ever have to
make.
I recently
came across three ethical dilemmas involving a train tragedy. In the first
scenario, you are the switchboard operator and a train is heading toward five
children on the tracks. The five children can be saved if you throw the switch
and send the train toward a lone child standing on the tracks. In the next
scenario, the five kids can be saved by pushing an elderly man onto the tracks
to stop the train. In the final scenario, the lone kid on the tracks is your
own. What would you do in these scenarios? What is moral or ethical? What is
the right thing to do? Is there a right thing to do? I will discuss how I
believe I would act in the three scenarios.
The most
difficult issue with these scenarios is determining how I would respond
ethically without allowing emotions to get in the way. I believe I would
respond differently in terms of emotions versus ethics. LaFollette (2007)
mentioned that some individuals make ethical decisions based on principles.
They stick to what they believe no matter the consequences. This line of
thinking did not do me much good because I do not have a moral compass to
delineate between taking five lives or throwing the switch to only take one
life. Krueger (2008) discussed several ethical theories regarding how to
determine which option to choose in an ethical dilemma, though none of them
helped in this scenario. The Situational
theory states that a decision is moral or ethical if it creates the greatest
amount of love (Krueger, 2008). This seems to be a solid theory but did not
offer much guidance in this particular scenario. This decision must be made in
a way to eliminate the most damage.
In the
first scenario, I would throw the switch and sacrifice the one child to save
the five. This decision was made based on weighing the consequences. I considered
that either way there will be an accident. On one track five children have
fallen or made their way onto the track and one child has fallen on the other
track. In my opinion, I am morally obligated to throw the switch and minimize
the damage. Though the consequence is grim no matter what I choose to do, my
inner consequentialist says that throwing the switch will result in the best
consequence.
The second
scenario with the older gentleman initiated a different line of thinking. I did
not approach this scenario solely in terms of consequences. A consequentialist
would most likely agree that saving the five kids no matter the situation would
be the most ethically sound decision.
This decision was harder to reach than the decision in the first
scenario. After much deliberation, I decided that I would not push the old man
onto the tracks to save the children. I know some would say that he is an older
gentleman and has been able to live his life where the children have not. I see
that and definitely understand the argument.
But, in my mind, the children getting hit by the train would be a horrible
accident, but me pushing a man onto the tracks, even if I am trying to save
five children, is murder. And, to me, murder is less ethical than the positive
consequences of saving five children.
LaFollete
(2007) described that deontologists believe that moral rules should be followed
no matter the consequences. Another theory that assisted with my decision is
this scenario is the Golden Rule. According to Krueger (2008), the Golden Rule
establishes that an act is ethical if you treat others the way you would like
to be treated. I understand that not everyone would choose to sacrifice
themselves for five children. If I had the opportunity to jump on the tracks to
save the children then my response may be different. But, I do know that I find
it unethical to play God and decide to end this man’s life to stop an accident.
The final
scenario was the hardest to determine what to do. I do not have any children,
but I do have nieces, so I pictured them in this scenario. My initial thought
was that the ethical thing to do would be to sacrifice them to save the other
children. I determined in the first scenario that the moral and ethical
decision would be to save the five children by flipping the switch. I know the
right answer should be to flip the switch, but then both emotion and thought
began to set in. I began to weigh the ethical responsibility I have to raise my
child against the ethical responsibility I have to society by saving the other five
children, therefore, creating the best consequence. I realized in this
situation that I would more than likely not do what I considered morally sound
in the first scenario. I would sacrifice the five children in order to save my
child, nieces, or even my friend’s children. It is very difficult to picture
the final scenario without letting emotion overpower what we thing is right or
wrong, and I believe the majority of us would save our own child over the
strangers in this scenario.
This
exercise taught me that what we consider moral or ethical will change based on
the situation or scenario. In the first scenario, I was willing to risk one
life to save five, but the final two scenarios had an opposite result. LaFollette
(2007) stated, “Although most of us abstractly recognize the importance of consistency,
many of us fail to be consistent in the concrete” (p. 17). These three
different ethical dilemmas proved that I am subject to ethical inconsistency in
various scenarios.
References
Krueger, G., & Krueger, M.
(2008). 3 Steps to solve an ethical dilemma. Retrieved from http://biggsuccess.com/bigg-articles/3-steps-to-solve-an-ethical-dilemma/
LaFollette,
H. (2007). The practice of ethics.
Malden, MA: Blackwell
No comments:
Post a Comment