There is never a correct answer in hypothetical scenarios that question an individual’s morals and ethics. However, these hypothetical scenarios are able to evaluate what somebody considers important in life. Dilemmas are predicaments in which undesirable choices are given and a choice has to be made, unfortunately you are at a loss in both cases. If both cases are unfavorable it tests what this individuals prioritizes.
Recently in Church our morals and ethics were challenged. One of the moral dilemmas discussed was if a homeless man was begging for money what would you do? Answers varied from walking past the man to buying him food. Their answers varied as everyone had a different perspective on the situation. Some people were concerned the man would purchase drugs or alcohol, while others believed it to be unfair to only give this man money and not the many other homeless people. The discussion helped me reevaluate what I believed was righteous or unethical. In this scenario, I believed the virtuous act would be to purchase food for the homeless instead of walking past him. I stumbled upon a famous ethical dilemma that puts one’s morals to the test. I will share my opinion on the situation and what I believe is righteous.
There is a runaway trolley barreling down the railway tracks. Ahead, on the tracks, there are five people tied up and unable to move. The trolley is headed straight for them. You are standing some distance off in the train yard, next to a lever. If you pull this lever, the trolley will switch to a different set of tracks. However, you notice that there is one person on the side track. You have two options:
Do nothing, and the trolley kills the five people on the main track.
Pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill one person.
Case 1: Would you kill 1 person to save the lives of five people? This is the question one must ask themselves if they choose to pull the lever. If you weren’t aware of the person on the side track, this would not be a problem. However, the issue is knowing the repercussions of pulling the lever. Our morals are tested as we decide whether to intentionally kill a person to save the lives of others. Significant harm on one person must be done to save the lives of others which cannot be morally justified. Human lives aren’t like money with prices attached to them, the lives of five people is not more significant than the life of one person. I believe that it is not morally acceptable to use the lives of people to save the lives of others.
Case 2: The second scenario is where you do not pull the lever and allow for the train to run its main course. Although, you might not have pulled the lever you had knowledge of the circumstances, you were aware of the death of the five people ahead on the track if nothing were done. However, you still chose to not pull the lever as you believe it was morally unacceptable to sacrifice the life of one person for the benefit of others. I believe that it is morally acceptable to do nothing in this case as you aren’t intentionally killing the five people.
In the Trolley Problem, I do not value lives of five people higher over the life of one person. The killing of one person cannot be justified through saving the lives of others. Everybody might believe saving the lives of five people would be more important than a singular life, but I can’t go through with pulling a lever knowing that I would still kill somebody. Morally I would feel grief and guilt for pulling that lever. The Trolley Problem has to be one of the more morally challenging dilemmas as both scenarios result in death. One’s choice is dependent on what they personally believe is ethical.
