Saw the first lecture by Prof.Michael Sandel on justice on edx. He talks about a case situation where you are driving a trolley truck that's gone out of control.there are 5 workers in the street ahead and it is 100% for sure that if you continue going straight ahead, you will careen into them and kill them.
Now, You have just one alternative. You see a side track and you can quickly steer to it. But there is 1 worker in that track and if you turn there, he will be killed for sure.
So, whats the right thing to do?
Let the truck ram into five workers and kill them, or kill one person in order to save five others?
My first answer is that I would steer the truck into the side track and save 5 lives.......by killing 1.
But that 'feels' morally wrong. That still looks like killing, rather than saving.
But what if by killing one innocent person, I could save 1000 innocent lives? Would I then take the truck on sidetrack and save 1000 other people by killing 1. Does it feel morally right ? Is that the right thing to do ?
Tough question.
my first reaction was -yes.it's rational and reasonable to kill one person to save a thousand others.
But now my answer is a NO.
Why?
Well, I feel that though your intentions are good, though the result of your action (killing one person to save many others) look logically and mathematically better on paper, it sends out a very disturbing signal in the society. It somehow dehumanizes the worker in the side track. In a split second, an innocent, hard working man became a commodity, he became expendable. His wishes, his rights didn't matter any more and he became your object, which you chose to do away with. His life was somewhat of lesser importance than the lives of five others. And that's what feels wrong.
But what about the other 5 people? Wont they die, won't their families suffer? Didn't they have a right to live as much as the poor thing in side track did ?
Yes. That's all correct. But in both the scenarios, they still have their dignity to live or die as a human being and not as an object.
Let me put it this way. Thousands of people die in accidents everyday, natural or man made. Accidents kill people, but as opposed to act of the killing with motive, they don't leave behind an uncomfortable feeling. One man treating another man as an object can never be right. It doesn't matter what the motive was.
Killing one for saving other can not be right. You wont kill one man and harvest his organs to save five others, even though it might sound like a logical thing to do. But morality isn't about logic it's about what legacy you leave behind. What lessons people get from your actions.
However, if you still choose ti steer the trolley on the sidetrack and kill one man to save many others, make sure you kill yourself right after that. Because only that can restore the balance of morality that you just disturbed.
Now, You have just one alternative. You see a side track and you can quickly steer to it. But there is 1 worker in that track and if you turn there, he will be killed for sure.
So, whats the right thing to do?
Let the truck ram into five workers and kill them, or kill one person in order to save five others?
My first answer is that I would steer the truck into the side track and save 5 lives.......by killing 1.
But that 'feels' morally wrong. That still looks like killing, rather than saving.
But what if by killing one innocent person, I could save 1000 innocent lives? Would I then take the truck on sidetrack and save 1000 other people by killing 1. Does it feel morally right ? Is that the right thing to do ?
Tough question.
my first reaction was -yes.it's rational and reasonable to kill one person to save a thousand others.
But now my answer is a NO.
Why?
Well, I feel that though your intentions are good, though the result of your action (killing one person to save many others) look logically and mathematically better on paper, it sends out a very disturbing signal in the society. It somehow dehumanizes the worker in the side track. In a split second, an innocent, hard working man became a commodity, he became expendable. His wishes, his rights didn't matter any more and he became your object, which you chose to do away with. His life was somewhat of lesser importance than the lives of five others. And that's what feels wrong.
But what about the other 5 people? Wont they die, won't their families suffer? Didn't they have a right to live as much as the poor thing in side track did ?
Yes. That's all correct. But in both the scenarios, they still have their dignity to live or die as a human being and not as an object.
Let me put it this way. Thousands of people die in accidents everyday, natural or man made. Accidents kill people, but as opposed to act of the killing with motive, they don't leave behind an uncomfortable feeling. One man treating another man as an object can never be right. It doesn't matter what the motive was.
Killing one for saving other can not be right. You wont kill one man and harvest his organs to save five others, even though it might sound like a logical thing to do. But morality isn't about logic it's about what legacy you leave behind. What lessons people get from your actions.
However, if you still choose ti steer the trolley on the sidetrack and kill one man to save many others, make sure you kill yourself right after that. Because only that can restore the balance of morality that you just disturbed.
posted from Bloggeroid
ReplyDeleteI used to believe in what u said but I am not so sure now..
Machiavellianism has no place for Morality.. If u r the decision maker .. sometimes u have no luxury to be moral..
Sometimes and Sometimes... Ends justify the means...
Consider general.. who puts enemy Flag on the outpost.. to trick enemy .. and ambush them... Would u suggest him to be moral and lead his outnumbered men to death.
Qin Shi Huang built the Great wall of China...to ward of nomadic Invaders. He used "forced Labour" and by some accounts upto a million lives were lost during construction of wall. But it brought peace, stability and protection to China for generations to come...
The End justified the means here..
The example u jus gave is a classic example of Machiavellianism Vs Justice ... The man on the side track has obeyed the rule the men on the street did not..
But tell me b4 u speak of morality ... what will u tell to the four family whose bread owner u just mowed that u could have saved them .. but ur Moral Principles didn't allow.
There r no right answers....
Wow. Lots of new things for me to know from your comment.
ReplyDeleteKilling one man instead is bad. Killing all four is horrible. There is no right answer To that question.more than the question, it's the philosophy that's behind each answer thst matters, I think.
Every action has two types of reactions. One, immediate and two, long term. and the decidionsWhat does killing one man instead of four suggest?
Morally speaking, its not okay to k ill one man to save four. Practically speaking, it is. Because you get four resources at the sacrifice of one. Four families sustain instead of one. Contributing to more labour, road construction goes on without hassles and country progresses. But with the same practical thinking, would it be alright for a father to spend more on a boy's education ? Since he is the one who will contribute to family's income in future, whereas the daughter will be married off and not give any returns on investment?
ReplyDeleteWould it be fair thatthe government neglect welfare of differently Abled, old people, psychiatric patients and allocate the money being spent on them to firms that would bring profit for the country, uplifting millions of people faster? Should morality be sacrificed st the alters of progress ? And what message are we giving in the process? Human beings are mere commodities, to be either used or thrown , depending on whoever brings progress and who is a liability. I think that's the intricate thin line between whats practical vs. Whats moral , thst the professor wanted us to see and ponder over.
ReplyDeleteMorality ...Should not be sacrificed first ... but sometimes and jus sometimes it needs to be sacrificed
I told Sometimes "Ends Justify The Means"
Whether you look at human beings as individuals or commodities .. To what extent you will go to attain progress ? But life is much more complicated than that, I agree. However whenever possible, do not sacrifice morality for the sake of progress. That's all I could derive from thst question.
ReplyDeleteEnds do not always justify the means..
ReplyDeleteYou might become the wealthiest nation tomorrow but if you are suppressing freedom for speech, if you put people behind bars because they questioned your ways, because they opposed clinical trials illegally being done on poor people, then you might save few hundred patients but does that justify what means you used ?? God forbid, if such a country has ambitions of conquering other countries and if it has the ability for that , what would happen to the world. We will have progress but will be scared to speak our minds. To have freedom. To protest against government. .. Progress is great but how much moral damage you are doing in the process is worth looking into. Great ends do not justify savage, brutal means.
I think the question was devised in a way as to make us think and arrive at different conclusions, to present an argument and let it be assailed by a counter argument and thus in the process, know more about ourselves and the world. You are not wrong. I'm not wrong but I'm sure we have exchanged a few ideas and have become more aware about our own thought processes than we were about an hour ago :)
ReplyDeleteI think that's the whole point.