Last
week we were given the scenario of children trapped on the railroad tracks and
we were only three choices; switch the
tracks to kill one child to save five, switch the tracks to kill five to save
one (who happens to be our child) or to kill an elderly gentleman by pushing
them onto the tracks which will stop the train and save six children but kill
the man. This is a good example of
Consequentialism. Think of such sayings as
“the Ends Justify the Means” and “Harming One to Save Many”. There is a certain justification in this that
you are still being ethical in your decision and you are doing so for the
greater good. According to the text
consequentialists must do three things:
·
Which consequences we should count
·
How much weight or consideration to give
them
·
How we should use these considerations when reflecting on them
So
what does this mean? Looking at the
situation I can decide if the consequences are relevant (does this affect me
directly?). How much weight should I
give to this decision and will it depend on how much the consequences will
affect me? When I am considering this
how should I make my decision based on all the information I have? Using the train example there are different
consequences for each act I may take. If
I do nothing five children will die but my child will be safe. If I flip the switch to save the five I kill
my child. Can I live with that
fact? What if I can’t have any more kids
does that make a difference in my decision? If I push the old man I save all
the kids but I am purposely taking another person’s life to save the children
but I am harming one to save many.
Consequentialists
have to decide which consequences are significant and which are not. Does my choice maximize my happiness? Should I choose the one that will bring me
the most happiness with the consequences.
All of these have to be taken into consideration to make a valid and
moral decision, if it is not significant than my action is to do nothing as it
won’t have enough of an impact either way. With consequentialism there can be a certain
justification for my actions (killing an old man to save five children) which I
would feel are morally sound.
Now
we turn to Deontology. This theory is
more of a set of rules that must be followed that starts when we are children; “Don’t
slam the door”, “Don’t hit your cousin”, “Don’t lie”. As we grow and mature these rules with change
to accommodate who we are as adults; “Don’t cheat on your spouse”, “Don’t steal
from the company”. We look at these
rules as a compass on what our moral values are. It is more about our rights and obligations
in regards to ethics.
This
theory is more based on what you are doing not so much in the consequences of
those actions. So you should not lie,
steal, kill regardless of what those consequences would be. In the train example because it is wrong to
kill even though you would be saving more lives than killing you are not supposed
to kill so you do nothing or your save your child without regard to the others
because you are duty-bound to the safety of your child. What if your friends ex-boyfriend showed up
at your house demanding to know where your friend was and you know that if you
tell him the truth he will kill her but lying is wrong isn’t it? So would it be wrong to lie in order to save
your friends life? If we followed the
absolute rules than yes it would be wrong because lying is wrong.
We
know that we are not perfect and there will be times when going against what you
feel is morally right produces a better outcome (you save your child’s life,
your friend isn’t murdered by her insane ex-boyfriend). There has to be some give and take and
understanding that there will be areas of grey it will not always be absolute
in every case. We must also keep in mind
that that there is nothing wrong with deciding what the consequences will be
while keeping in mind that sometimes doing the wrong thing may end up being the
right thing.
No comments:
Post a Comment