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.
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
Post a Comment