A634.1.5.RB - The Train Dilemma: When no Choice is a Good One!

At one point or another I imagine everyone is faced with a decision that has no good alternative, a decision which will result in pain and suffering, discomfort, or some negative outcome for somebody.  These ethical dilemmas are challenging to face.  LaFollette (2007) suggested that we can become better at navigating ethical dilemmas by moral theorizing; by pondering and considering how we would act in certain circumstances and why.  “We should think carefully about ethical quandaries we have not yet faced.  If we do when we are not under pressure to make a quick and potentially momentous decision, we will be better equipped to make good decisions when we must act” (p. 8).

Scenario #1

To begin the practice of moral theorizing I will consider the classic ethical dilemma of the train.  This dilemma involves a train hurtling down the track where five children are standing.  Without some action, some intervention, those five children will undoubtedly be killed.  There is no time to warn the children or the conductor.  The only option available to save the lives of those five children is to throw the switch, diverting the train onto a side track.  However, there is one child on the side track.  Throwing the switch will save the life of the five, back take the life of one.  Would I throw the switch?

I would throw the switch.

LaFollette (2007) said that “When someone asks us why we made a decision or why we support some position, we offer, or should be prepared to offer, reasons for our actions, decisions, or conclusions” (p. 15).  Here is my reasoning for throwing the switch: although the majority of decisions are made based on emotions, ethical decisions should be made based on values.  When an ethical dilemma puts two values at odds with each other the value that is most important to the decision-maker should take precedence (Making Ethical Decisions, 2014).  I value life.  I think every effort should be made to preserve life.  Because of the fact that I place high value on life, I don’t think it is hard to understand why I would sacrifice the one to save the five.

Scenario #2

In the next version of the train dilemma the situation is the same except that there is an elderly man standing next to the track.  Somehow I become aware that by pushing the man onto the tracks the train would stop and all the children would be saved.  There are no other plausible options for saving everyone.  In this case pushing the man onto the tracks would save all of the children.  Inaction would lead to the deaths of the five children.  It is not explicitly stated in the scenario, but I assume the option is still on the table to throw the switch to save the five children by killing the one on the side track.  Would I push the man?

I would not push the man, but I would still throw the switch.

LaFollete (2007) said that “most people acknowledge that if someone’s actions clearly and substantially affect others (either benefits or harms them), then even if we do not yet know whether those actions are right or wrong, we can agree that they should be evaluated morally” (p. 15).  How can I justify my decision to not kill one to save the five, but causing the death of another to save them?  It goes back to my values and the weight I place on each one.  As I said before I place high value on life.  Because of that I value the preservation of life and avoid situations that would cause me to put someone’s life at risk.  I could not imagine doing something, like pushing an elderly man to his death, even if it was to save other lives.  So removing this option from the table we go back to the previous scenario.  Would I throw the switch, taking the life of one to save five?  As I stated in the previous scenario the answer is yes.  The difference I see in the taking the life of the elderly man or taking the life of the one child is that the man does not have to die, while either the five or the one must die.  I would see the action of pushing someone that does not have to die to their death as killing.  Choosing between the limited options of one death or five, when one must be chosen, I see as an act of saving, not killing.

Scenario #3

The last version of the train dilemma involves the same scenario, except that the lone child on the side track is my child.  This scenario has been more challenging than the others to resolve.  My initial reaction was that I would not throw the switch killing the five to save my own child.  I justified this initial response because, although I value the preservation of life, I place higher value on the life of my children than on other lives.  However, LaFollette (2007) points out that when we begin to morally theorize we should consider the consequences of the positions we hold.  As I considered this dilemma more and the consequences each choice would involve, I thought about which option I could live with for the rest of my life.  Knowing that I would be replaying the scenario over and over in my mind, which option would cause me to feel the least personal guilt.  Additionally, I began to wonder which I would be more comfortable with, mourning the loss of my own child, or causing the parents of five other children to endure that grief and pain.  Would I throw the switch?

I would throw the switch.

That was not easy to write, but I would throw the switch.  I would sacrifice my own child to save five others.  I value life, and I value the life of my own child even more.  However, I also place high value on service to others.  Service in my mind is to help others overcome pain and suffering.  If I can prevent the pain and suffering of other people I will do it at great cost to myself.  That is part of who I am.  

Lesson Learned 

Every dilemma involves consequences, relevant details and underlying values.  From this exercise I have come to understand how the relevant details of a situation can completely change the dilemma.  Each scenario was essentially the same: lives are at risk and my action or inaction will cause the death of some.  Who will I sacrifice and to save whom?  The decision changes though as relevant details and consequences are uncovered.  My values, and the weight I give each of them changes depending on the details of the situation.  Time permitting, as much information should be understood and processed before making ethical decisions.  Lafollete (2007) said “Still other times all available options appear objectionable: none of the choices is good, and we do not want to have to live with the consequences of making any of them” (p. 7).  I only hope I am never put in a situation like the one described in this scenario.

References

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice Of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.

Making Ethical Decisions. (2014, April 1). Retrieved from https://blink.ucsd.edu/finance/accountability/ethics/path.html