Friday, September 20, 2013
The Third Option
Today in class when explaining the importance of the "consequence" the scenario of "The Trolley Problem" was brought up. Originally in this scenario there are two options, do nothing and kill 10 people, or pull the switch and kill 1 person. As discussed, it was initially apparent that killing the single person was more ethical, because it inflicted the least amount of pain on the greatest amount of people. However, if the single person turned out to be a family member per say, then the one's decision would most likely change. What I wonder now though is, what if you were given a third choice, the choice to kill yourself? If one were to think this through using the Felicific Calculus principle, in the situation where everyone is a complete stranger, I feel that the choice to kill oneself would be the most ethical decision. As it doesn't seem at all practical, one is still following the rule of inflicting the least amount of pain on the most amount of people, given you are the only one being inflicted with pain. However, in the case with the family member, the choice would seem a bit more complex. Killing yourself would inflict pain both on you and your family member, and visa verse, and killing the 10 people would inflict pain on them and yourself via the regret of not making another decision. What I feel must be asked after realizing that each decision can be seen as equally as bad, is that how does one determine that one choice inflicts more pain upon an individual than another choice? I would believe that determining this would be done so through how one perceives the situation. But, considering this wouldn't it be impossible to know that the choice one makes is the truly ethical choice. After all, the group of 10 people could as well be a family. However, again, the individual given the choice, really has no way of knowing this, for such ideas could only come from assumptions. But, given the chance that the individual knows everything about everyone in the scenario, they the single person is the mother, and the group of 10 people are related to on another, is there any "just" choice? If so, would the addition of this third choice actually bring about a potential change in the situation? Would the individual given the choice, have a significant change in perception of the scenario?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I think your argument doesn’t work in this specific scenario only because whether you kill yourself or not, the ten people will die if you do not pull the switch. Therefore, killing yourself would be the most unethical decision, because you are no longer simply allowing ten people to die, but are now also harming yourself. Therefore, you will have done the most harm to the most people possible, the antithesis of Mill’s utilitarianism.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, the option to kill oneself seems appealing. Despite the unfairness of the scenario, somehow you have been placed in a dilemma where your decision will kill either one or ten people. Suicide provides an escape, where you can relinquish that choice and relieve yourself of the responsibility and guilt of the decision. However, not only is this cowardly, but as stated before, this causes the most amount of pain. Therefore, despite trying to escape the emotion and guilt of the impending decision, you will make the least moral decision if you decide to kill yourself.