A634.2.4.RB_SchreterPaul

            There are two theories of thoughts with ethics and from these spawn many other theories. The two theories being discussed include consequentialism and deontology. The following includes a short discussion on both and my thoughts.

            Consequentialism can be defined as a “claim that we are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). Utilitarianism is what most people will think about when considering consequences. Utilitarianism is “conforms to our feeling that some good and some bad will necessarily be the result of our action and that the best action will be that which provides the most good or does the least harm, or, to put it another way, produces the greatest balance of good over harm” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). In my opinion a lot of decisions are made this way, especially within the military, where number of lives may be at stake. Sometimes we have to sacrifice the few to save the many.

            Deontology claims “that our moral obligations – whatever they are – are defined by the rues, partly independently of consequences” (LaFollette, 2007). Growing up as children this was most likely what we were introduced to. Don’t steal from other kids, don’t hurt other kids, and don’t kill anyone. In the military we are introduced to similar. Don’t drink and drive, only yes means yes (with regards to sex), and avoid physical confrontations. The rules here are far more important than the consequences themselves. It doesn’t matter if your sister is starving and about to die, don’t steal that loaf of bread from a fat kid. While this example is a bit extreme, it highlights the basic understanding and idea behind deontology.

            So while making ethical decisions, it takes a careful balance between the two to determine what is right. While a deontologist might argue to never steal, some may believe that it’s justifiable in the example of stealing from a fat kid to feed a starving family member. While a consequentialist might argue to push an elderly man in front of an oncoming train to save five kids, some may believe that it’s not justifiable because of the act of committing murder. There’s really no way to determine right from wrong for every scenario as people and societies will have varying answers, but rarely is the case where one isn’t sacrificing some value for another.

            Discussed were a little bit about consequentialism and deontology and my thoughts on the two. A careful balance has to be played on almost a case by case basis. There is no universal rule on what is the right thing to do and so sometimes we have to trust our better judgement that’ll we’ll do what is right.

References

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013, May). A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions. Retrieved from Brown University: https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.

A634.1.5.RB_SchreterPaul

            In this week's blog, I’ll be looking at a classic ethical dilemma involving a train and many children, where death is inevitable. Similar to putting a gun in a soldier’s hands and sending them to war, how I would react if really put into these situations is a complete uncertainty. What I can do is theorize and trust that I will react in a way that I would like to see myself react. This week I’ll state my opinions on three different scenarios.

            The first scenario is as follows:

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switch person. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

            In this example I would throw the switch in an effort to reduce the number of deaths; it’s the lesser of two evils. In this case, I would be following a “consequentialist moral reasoning [which] locates morality in the consequences of an act” (Sandel, 2009). One death, as tragic as it may seem, is far more acceptable than having five deaths.

            The second scenario is as follows:

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

            In this example, I would not push the elderly man. What makes this example different to the first is the mental distance I feel with the potential victim. In the first example not only is there a larger physical distance to the child but the act of flipping a switch feels less violent and “murdery” than physically pushing a person. In the second example, not only would I be right next to the potential victim, but the act of touching the elderly man makes the individual more real. Let me put this another way, if a stranger is killed next to me I would feel horrible. If a stranger is killed on the other side of the world, I wouldn’t care. The further the distance I feel to a potential victim, the less I associate their death with an act of murder. LaFollette mentioned, “we also sometimes think it is important to ‘stick by our moral guns,’ even if the likely consequences of doing so are detrimental” (LaFollette, 2007). This is the act of making a choice based on principle, more so than making a choice based on consequences.

            The third scenario is as follows:

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

            In this example, I would not throw the switch. I would place the life of my child over the lives of five others. As crude and as horrible as this sounds, it is likely that my love for my child would be far greater than the love I would have for five strangers. To look at this from a different perspective, the grief and despair that I would experience with the loss of my own child would be far greater than that I would have of five strangers. This goes in line with the mental distancing that I feel with the potential victim. No physical distance would ever lessen my love for my child. In this case, I would fall back onto the consequentialist theories, but this time, rather than take on a more utilitarian approach I would be taking on a more egoistic approach, which “in this approach, an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).

            Presented were three different scenarios and how I would react to each scenario. While people may disagree with some of my choices, I likely wouldn’t be able to react in any other way. These are difficult choices to make and I do hope I never find myself in any of these scenarios because regardless of what I do, anything that involves another person's death would cause great sorrow.

References

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013, May). A Framework for Making Ethical Decisions. Retrieved from Brown University: https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: WileyBlackwell.

Sandel, M. (2009, September 4). Justice: What's The Right Thing To Do? Episode 01 "THE MORAL SIDE OF MURDER". Retrieved February 20, 2016, from YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY