My older brother is in college and he is taking a philosophy class and they were discussing morality. His professor proposed different scenarios and asked students what they would do.
The scenario was: there are five people tied to a train track and a train is coming. You can let the the five people die or you can pull a switch to turn the train onto another track. However, on that other track there is one person tied to it. You can let the five people die or you can pull the switch and only the one other person would die. What would you do?
Would you sacrifice one to save five? Or would you sacrifice the five people? In the broad scheme of things, maybe for the "greater good" it would be better to save five lives than one; but in a moral viewpoint it can be quite different.
You see, the philosophy class talked about, depending on what decision you choose, whether you are passively or actively killing someone. You might be thinking, how could I kill someone? Well, if you chose to save the five, then it could be considered as actively killing that single individual on the other track. Some might think that it's not the same thing as stabbing someone with a knife, but really it is. Just because you aren't right next to the person doesn't mean you aren't, in a sense, murdering them. You made the decision to flip the switch and kill the man.
On the other hand, should you have chosen to let the train come straight on, it could be labeled as passively killing those five people. By letting letting the train hit those five people and not doing anything to save them, you are passively killing them. You may not think you are doing anything, but by doing exactly that, (which is nothing), you are letting people die that you had the option to save.
Seeing these explanations, does it change your mind about what you would do? If it does, or not, why?
That's a very puzzling question. I'm not sure that any person could live with the guilt either way. I know I couldn't. If I had to choose I would say kill the 1 person. Even though I would be actively killing the one person I think I would still do it because the number of other lives that would be affected would be less. The number of people 5 people know is more than 1 person if you are thinking about the average person. And a lot of times a persons death is harder on those left behind than that of the dead. I'm still not sure but that's just how I looked at it.
ReplyDeleteIt's a classic dilemma you pose. But what does it have to do with our class themes or works? It would be so much more interesting to tie this to Huck and the decisions he has to make, don't you think?
ReplyDelete