A634.1.5.RB – The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!
The train
ethical dilemma does indeed puts your integrity and decision-making choices
into question. Living in a world where doing the right or wrong thing can make
a significant difference, makes it difficult to see the gray middle grounds on
those decisions. When faced with difficult decision where none of the choices
are attractive, I believe the best way to handle it is by using your critical
perspective and then use your inner sense of the situation. What is critical
thinking? Defined by Matthew Lipman, “Critical thinking is skillful,
responsible thinking that is conductive to good judgment because it is
sensitive to context, relies on criteria, and is self-correcting” (Nosich,
2012, p. 2).
After
though rough consideration, when it comes to scenario one; if there was a train
about hurtled down a track where five children were standing and with a switch
I could choose whether to have the train hurtled over five or just one child. I
would throw the switch to the one child standing on the train tracks while
saving five other children’s lives. The reasoning behind this decision is to
save as many kids as possible, the lesser the damage the better. It does not
mean, that one child has no importance, but in the great skim of things, four
more children get to go home and see their parents. Additionally, this would
imply living with the remorse of not saving one child’s live instead of five.
On the
second scenario, if I was standing next to an elderly man and with the switch I
had to choose whether to save all five children from the train or push the man,
I would without a doubt push him in front of the train. The reason I would
chose the elderly man is because as it is implied, he is a man of age. He
probably has lived a good life and experienced all kinds of adventures. As if
we compare it to the five children, they are still kids full of life. Overall,
it is harder to say goodbye to a child than an elderly man, as it is expected
for a man of age to die but not when it comes to children. Not to say that
emotions are not involved, but I feel more attached to the children’s parents’
emotions and feelings more than mine. As described by Hugh LaFollette, “some
people are oblivious to moral questions: they just blindly pursue their own
interests, never caring how their actions affect others” (2007, p. 88).
Lastly, the
third scenario suggests that with a switch I could either save the five
children standing on the train track or save my own child. Now, this is a
tricky question since emotions are involved. This decision is no longer rational
and therefore, my decision-making is impaired. Nevertheless, I would chose to
save my own kid as harsh as that may sound. There really is no best moral
choice when it comes to this scenario as you are talking about children dying.
“When we start thinking systematically about practical ethical issues, we begin
to theorize morally. Too often we see moral theorizing as a quaint intellectual
practice of bearded, pipe-smoking, briefcase-toting philosophers” (LaFollette,
2007, p. 102). However, no definition will help into making this kind of
decision, as I am almost certain most parent would chose to save their own kid
at dispense of five other kids.
References
LaFollette, H. (2007). The
practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Wiley-Blackwell.
Nosich, G. M. (2012).
Learning to think things through: A guide to critical thinking across the
curriculum (4th edition). Boston, MA: Pearson.
No comments:
Post a Comment