The BBC did a nice little story on Ethical Dillemma's
here.
There's a couple fun classic ones that most of you have already heard, of course. But still fun.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
This blog is dedicated to ethical debates regarding Just War Theory and the Profession of Arms as well as other issues of philosophical and ethical interest. Its primary contributors are future Air Force Officers currently attending the Air Force Academy. The views expressed in this blog are solely the opinions of the individual authors and not of the United States Air Force nor the Department of Defense.
5 comments:
I choose to respond to the first ethical dilemma regarding the violinist.
I feel that it is morally wrong to disconnect yourself fromt he violinist, thus ending their life. All three major normative ehthical theories would oppose this action.
Deontology: Since you are already hooked up to the violinist and you know that disconnecting will end their life, you now have a DUTY to stay connected.
Virtue Ethics: Since you know that the person will die if you disconnect from them and staying connected to them will cause you no harm, a good, virtuous person would stay connected.
Consequentialism: If you stay connected to the violinist and save their life, the greatest good for them will arise and you will experience no pain.
I choose to respond to the first ethical dilemma regarding the violinist.
I feel that it is morally wrong to disconnect yourself fromt he violinist, thus ending their life. All three major normative ehthical theories would oppose this action.
Deontology: Since you are already hooked up to the violinist and you know that disconnecting will end their life, you now have a DUTY to stay connected.
Virtue Ethics: Since you know that the person will die if you disconnect from them and staying connected to them will cause you no harm, a good, virtuous person would stay connected.
Consequentialism: If you stay connected to the violinist and save their life, the greatest good for them will arise and you will experience no pain.
I think that in these thought experiments the answers are a combination of deontology and consequentialism. Assuming they are all random people and we can't choose villains to die or family members to live, i would choose the option that saves more people. All of these situations deal with saving lives, something precious to each human. The virtue theorist is stuck because they want to do no wrong, but i think it would be wrong not to help the majority. The duty is to save more people.
On a side note i would kill the fat guy blocking the hole. Personally i think i would save myself and the others before everyone but "Jack" dies. I think my will for self-preservation would overcome the problem of killing someone. Although this is sinister, i think others would agree.
Looking through the experiments I thought it was interesting on what my first reaction was compared to when I actually thought of it. In the first scenario, I'm all for disconnecting yourself, however, I see a slight problem relating it to abortion, in most cases of abortion the mother has not done everything possible to keep from getting pregnant (abstinence would be on that list), most abortions are done because it was a mistake, the parents didn't mean for it to happen, the person can't support the child, or simply the person didn't want a baby and messed up. The violinist situation was not by choice and the person wasn't able to do everything they could to avoid the situation. So I think the parallel is a bit weak, the morals involved in each situation are slightly different. As a part of that experiment, they mentioned a scenario with a doctor, a drug and saving one or five people's lives. Up until the time the five people walked in, the doctor's moral duty was to save that one person, I don't believe that his moral duty changed when the five walked in. But being Kantian I would say he had a duty first to the person he was originally treating.
Then the trolley incident got me, and I remember we did this experiment with the bus shark and the people. When we make moral judgements it is usually concerning the actions of ourselves, if I steal...if I kill..if I lie. Even if you really wouldn't have an effect you can only judge the moral acitons that you are truly responsible, if I want to sacrifice myself to try to save the people on the trolley then if I find that to be my moral duty then I should. But I see pushing the fat man, and saving the trolley as two different decisions. If I push the fat man to save the people, I am using him merely as a means, because he did not get to decide the morality of the situation on his own. I think it would be better to talk to him first and see if he'll do it himself, making it a truly moral jesture on his part and him working to an ends.
Overall, I thought the experiments were fun to read through and think about and that my reactions and decision gave me some insight into myself.
Violin Scenario:
Of course, I'd be upset that they hooked me up without my permission, but I think one absolutely has a duty to stay connected to the violinist. I wouldn't do it solely because he's a world famous muscian, but because he is a human being. As part of humanity, I think we owe to each other to do as much as we can to help each other survive. If I were in his shoes, I'd hope someone would stay attached to me.
Trolly Car:
Personally, I believe people should pick and choose the theory they believe is most moral at any time. Even though I normally believe its wrong to help kill an innocent person, I'd divert the trolly in this situation. I think a consequentalist approach is the most ethical in this situation. If you could save five people by killing one person, would you do it? Yes, in a way, its kind of why I joined the military. As an officer, I'll either be physically dropping the bombs or assisting it in someway. Therefore, I think you have to believe that its okay to kill for some reasons. In this case, it happens to be saving the lives of five people.
Big Jack:
Here, once again I default to a consequentalist point of view. Its better to save four than to save one, even if it requires killing the one. However, I think it also goes along with the virtue theroist view as well. If I were in his shoes, I would tell the others to blow me up. You can't let your selfishness impeade the other's ability to survive. In order to be the moral person, you'd have to let the others blow you up.
Post a Comment