Skip to main content

Dilemmas

This week, my students are debating the following claim:

It is acceptable to kill one innocent person in order to save the lives of more innocent people.

There are several directions one could take with this claim, whether the position is in the affirmative or negative. I'll discuss just one about which I've been reading.

Two schools of thought would differ fundamentally in this debate. On the one hand are utilitarians, who believe that what is moral is whatever produces the most good for the greatest number of people, or whatever produces the least amount of pain. For that reason, utilitarians would argue that if all persons were of equal value to society, it is moral to kill the one and save the others.

On the other side are deontologists, who believe that what is moral is whatever action is loyal to a set of rules, or to duty. Not all deontologists believe in absolutes (as in it is always wrong to lie), but all believe that duty to principle should be the prime motive of the decisions we make. Its figurehead is Immanuel Kant, who believed a person should "act out of respect for the moral law," or out of duty. Deontoligists like Kant would argue that the action of killing is wrong, regardless of the consequences, so it would be wrong to kill one in order to save others.

Ideally, I would agree with the utilitarians; but men are not always idealists when faced with choices like these. I believe if I were faced with it, I would not have the will to kill a man, even if it were to save others.

It would be different if the choice were between letting someone die and acting to kill the person. Consider the "trolley problem."

In this problem, you are on board a runaway trolley. Five people are in your path, tied to the track. You have the option of flipping a switch to change tracks, which would save the five; but tied to that second track is a single person. Should you flip the switch?

In a second scenario, there is still a runaway trolley racing toward five people. Now, however, you are on a bridge below which the trolley will pass. The only way to stop the trolley is with some heavy object. Next to you is a fat man, with whom you could stop the trolley if you pushed him onto the tracks. He will die; the others will live. Should you push the man?

Notwithstanding my belief that failing to act can be just as good (or just as evil) as taking an action, I would feel more comfortable flipping a switch than actively pushing someone to his death. The same consequence would result: one man dies and the other five live; but I would act in the first case and not in the second. Why?

In the first case, someone else intended harm to all six persons tied to the track. I would not be morally culpable whatever choice I made because I am simply limiting the harm intended by another. In the second case, however, no one intended harm to the fat man; but by acting to kill him-- even if it saved the others-- I am intending him harm. In other words, I am not the killer in the first case, but I am in the second.

Like many others, I like moral absolutes, and I do believe in them; but in this situation, the nature of the circumstance would determine my behavior. Corrie Ten Boom was a Dutch Christian woman who saved many Jews' lives during the Holocaust by hiding them from the Nazis. To do this, however, she had to lie when asked about the presence of Jews. This was another situation where it was right to do something normally considered wrong.

I hate gray areas, probably more than most, but they exist. It is in our best interest to be mindful of the circumstances surrounding a situation, and make informed and thoughtful decisions.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

The Nice Guy Fallacy

I read part of a poem recently by one of my favorite poets. It reads: I envy not in any moods The captive void of noble rage The linnet born within the cage That never knew the summer woods. I envy not the beast that takes His license in the field of time Unfetter'd by the sense of crime To whom a conscience never wakes. Nor what may call itself as bles't The heart that never plighted troth But stagnates in the weeds of sloth Nor any want-begotten rest. I hold it true, whate'er befall I feel it, when I sorrow most 'Tis better to have loved and lost Than never to have loved at all. At base, Tennyson contrasted a life of risk, and consequent pain, with one of security. He sides conclusively with the life of risk, and says he fails to envy those who have faced no hardship. I agree with him; and, for good or ill, his words are just as relevant today as they were in the nineteenth century. Like then, there are those today who choose to live their lives with as little risk as...

Persuasion

At different points in history, governments have devoted men, women, and resources to try to persuade others to their side. One significant example of this occurred in Germany under Adolf Hitler. Hitler knew how important it was to make sure the German people were on his side as leader of the country. One way he did this was by controlling what people heard. Specifically, near the beginning of World War II, Hitler made it a crime for anyone in Germany to listen to foreign radio broadcasts. These were called the “extraordinary radio measures.” He did this to ensure that Germans weren’t being persuaded by enemy countries to question their loyalty to Hitler. He knew that a German listening to a radio broadcast from Britain might persuade that German to believe that Great Britain was the good guy and Hitler the bad guy. This was so important, in fact, that two people in Germany were actually executed because they had either listened to or planned to listen to a foreign radio broadcast (one...

Experiment

My social studies students and I are studying Islam right now. The other day, we were reading about one of the Five Pillars, zakat (charity in Islam that means "that which purifies"). Muslims believe that giving away money helps to purify it and also "safeguards [them] against miserliness" (1). I asked the class if this was true, that giving money away makes us less greedy. They generally agreed that it does. I wanted to test whether or not they really believed this, so I handed a volunteer a $10 bill. I told the class that I would ask for the bill back the next day. I said that they should pass the bill around among their classmates, and that as a result, there would be no way for me to know who had the bill. For that reason, whoever wanted to keep the money could keep it. Even if I did learn who kept it, I told them, I would not punish that person. I wanted them to be motivated by their own honesty. The next day, I asked for the bill, and a student handed it to me...