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 is interesting. One question I have though is why can’t we yell
or blow a horn to let the children know they need to get off the train tracks?
If there is time enough to push someone in front of the train to stop it, why
isn’t there time to warn the children to get off the tracks? This situation seems
completely avoidable if the tracks were underground or confined behind a tall
barrier that would have sensors that would warn people to stay off the tracks –
and why are we manually switching tracks? But since this is an exercise, I’m
going to assume that it takes place in a little country town in 1943 where
parents don’t teach their kids to not play on the train tracks and all of this
is logical.
In
the first scenario, I would throw the switch to save the five children. No one
wants children to die in such a brutal way but we always seem to go with the
idea that sacrificing one for the greater good is morally acceptable. Now, what
if these kids are a gang of jerks who are chasing this other one kid. What if
the five kids are bad kids…do they still deserve to live? Does the tortured
child still deserve to die? None of them deserve
to die…they are children and children can be cruel. Most children grow up to be
decent adults so this isn’t a fair judgement. So back to six completely benign
children. Yes, I would switch tracks to avoid the five. I would also make every
effort to warn the one child to get off the tracks if I possibly could. Either way, how do I, the lowly switch
operator, live with the fact that I unintentionally killed a child?
In
the second scenario, I would not toss some guy into the path of a speeding
train to save anyone. That seems ridiculous. Where am I that an old guy is
standing next to me while I’m working the switch and I don’t know him? What if
this guy is my boss? What if this guy just came to tell me to take my break and
brought me coffee? Why would his age have anything to do with whether or not I
threw him into this train as a door stop to save six kids? Are the elderly more
disposable because they’ve had more time on earth? I wouldn’t do it. I wouldn’t
throw the man on the tracks to save these kids. Would I throw myself on the
tracks to save these kids? Maybe. I would definitely throw a cow or some other
big animal. That would do the same thing in stopping the train. Someone has to
do something.
The
third scenario is difficult because I don’t have kids of my own. I don’t have a
parental connection to someone like that. I do love my family very much though and
if one of my nieces or nephews, or step-grandbabies was there I would not throw
that switch. There is no way I could tell either of my sisters or step-kids
that I sacrificed their child for the greater good. Morally or socially
acceptable or not. The loyalty to family is very strong to me and that’s what I
would do. This would be an inconsistency with my decision to throw the switch
in the first scenario. [T]hat we should treat two creatures the same unless
they are relevantly different, different in ways that justify treating them
differently. (Lafollette, 2007) The difference between scenario one and three
is that the child is my family. That is justification enough for my inconsistency.
Reference:
Lafollette, H. (2007). The practice
of ethics. Blackwell Publishing.
