A634.1.5.RB_BorutyAlan_The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is Good!

The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is Good!

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?

I have to take the teleological approach to resolve this dilemma.  According to Dr. Thomas White (1993) the teleological approach is results oriented and contends that “the moral character of actions depends on the simple, practical matter of the extent to which actions actually help or hurt people.  Actions that produce more benefits than harm are right; those that don't are wrong” (p. 3).  LaFollette (2007) refers to this approach as consequentialism.  The other approach under philosophical ethics is called deontological and it is action oriented.  This approach contends that actions have moral value.  Some actions are good and some are bad and they translate into moral law or rules that must be followed (White, 1993).  In this scenario, the rule, do not kill or harm, has already been broken.  The train hurtling down the track is going to kill children.  If I throw the switch, only one child will die.  If I do not throw the switch, five children will die. 

Since preventing death completely is not possible, achieving the best possible result is my objective.  I place equal value on the life of each child.  Then the choice of allowing one child to die or allowing five children to die becomes easier to make.  The consequence of throwing the switch is five times better than the consequence of not throwing the switch.  I would throw the switch, yes. 

This scenario plays out well in theory and I believe I could make this decision and take the action if I were actually faced with this dilemma.  Choosing who dies is a hard burden to carry.  Saving five lives is more palatable, but cannot completely erase losing the one child.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  You are the switchperson.  By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing.  However, 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?

Pushing the man would mean I physically caused his death.  In reality it is no different than throwing the switch and sending the train toward the single child on the track, but it feels more personal.  In the previous scenario, the rule, do not kill or harm, was broken for me and that is still the case.  I cannot prevent death.  If all life is considered equal, the consequences are the same whether I throw the switch or push the man.  One life sacrificed to save six. Either the six children or five children and the elderly man.  The rule, do not kill or harm, does come into play for the man.  He would not be on the track unless I push him and therefore would not be in any danger.  I would have to break that rule if I chose to push him.  The consequences do not improve in terms of lives saved if I do push the man.  This forces me to determine if the life of a child is more valuable than the life of an elderly man.   The value of a child’s life versus that of an elderly man is relative and depends on whether one asks the child’s parents or the man’s wife.  Either way, it is not mine to determine.  So, even though I would personally jump in front of the train if that were one of the options, I would not push the elderly man.  I would throw the switch.

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 your child is standing alone.  Will you throw the switch?

Nothing has changed in this scenario except that the child I would allow to die by throwing the switch is my own.  How can I value my child higher than five other children?  How could I justify my actions to the five sets of grieving parents?  “Morality concerns the interests of others” (Lafollette, 2007, p. 15).  If I put my interests before the interests of the other parents and chose to save my child over five other children, then my moral convictions would rightfully be scrutinized.  Lafollette (2007) suggests that people will ask us to provide reasons for our actions, decisions, and conclusions.  When they do, we need to be prepared to provide them.  The criteria were that all lives have equal value.  Saving as many lives as possible was the objective.  The names of the children saved was not a weighted consequence.  It would be the hardest thing I ever did, but yes, I would throw the switch because it would be the right thing to do.

In the first two scenarios, I believe I could and would carry out my decision.  The third scenario, for obvious reasons, would be more difficult to execute.  If I did not throw the switch, I would have my child, but I would lose myself.  A decision like that would plague me the rest of my days.  Now that I think about it, either choice I made would plague me. 

If the elderly man was still standing beside me in the third scenario, my decision not to push him would have been different.  Not right, but different.

~Pete

References:

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, Massachusetts: Blackwell Publishing.

White, T. I. (1993). Resolving an Ethical Dilemma. Retrieved from http://bourbon.usc.edu/engr102-f09/ethics.pdf