Michael Sandel: Justice (Response) - 24 views
started by william doughty on 06 Sep 13
started by william doughty on 06 Sep 13
Start a New Topic » « Back to the 12 Theory of Knowledge 2013-2014 group
started by william doughty on 06 Sep 13
The morality of murder in the 'train' scenario is controversial as it makes ones justified reasoning to one situation a complete contradiction to the same but slightly altered situation.
In this situation you are the driver of an train unable to stop. There are two possible tracks to follow. One track has 5 workers on it and the other track has only 1 worker. The train is currently following the track towards the 5 workers. You have an option of turning the train to the other track.
The majority of people chose to turn the train, avoiding the 5 workers and sacrificing the 1 worker. They actively changed the course of the train, in essence 'killing' the lone worker. There decision follows Consequentialism and Utilitarianism. The moral code in which the consequences of killing the 5 workers far outweighs the consequences of killing the one, along with the idea that in order to serve the greater good, the lone worker had to be sacrificed.
Then the situation of the scenario was altered slightly; Instead of being the train driver you are now an observer on a bridge and next to you is a fat man, that if pushed would fall on the tracks and stop the train altogether. The majority decided they would't push the fat man off the bridge.
What intrigued me, is that the majority who chose to sacrifice the lone worker now wouldn't be able to push the fat man off the bridge...isn't it the same thing though? They argued that by pushing the fat man off the bridge you were involving a person into the tragedy therefore liable of murder with intention. I argue that the Fat man and the lone worker are exactly the same. In both situations both characters are not involved directly in the scenario without the intended decision by you. By turning the wheel of the train, or pushing the man of the bridge, its you that's making the decision with intention as you know what the consequences are.
Categorical moral reasoning focuses on the duties and rights of a particular individual. With this in mind, not pushing the man off the bridge would be the right thing to do, and also keeping the train on the track of the 5 workers would be aswell.
Yet this makes me uncomfortable. While I too tend towards utilitarism, the greater good for the greatest number, I can't help but feel disgusted to use this as a justifiable reason for murder. If we can't value a single life, then how can we truly find meaningful value in many? Is this all just the lure of statistics that blinds us into making heinous decisions? When we start thinking of life as numbers and statistics, we lose a part of ourselves that makes us uniquely individual, the part that separates us from machines and uniform data. While i'm talking in abstract extremes, the dilemma plays out in our lives daily.
Should I give 50 dollars to a homeless person so he can have a 3 meals for one day and a place to sleep at night. Or should I give 5 dollars to 10 homeless people to afford 1 hot meal that day.
It's hard to come to a moral high ground when dealing with Consequential or Categorical moral reasoning. As both oppose each other, yet Consequentialism has the appeal of utilitarism that makes it easier to subscribe to. It's easier to base a decision in terms of numbers. because it doesn't require the emotional and psychological side of your decision making. While categorical moral reasoning forces one to view the idea's off consent and dependance as factors that would heavily affect your decisions.
What if the 5 workers had families that depended on them, and the lone worker was an illegal immigrant with no family? would that change your decision? This is why I am morally uncomfortable at making a definitive decision because I know it only takes a small factor for me to change my decision.
In conclusion I would not change the direction of the train or push the fat man. This is because I feel that I have no right to choose a person's death for them, no matter what my moral high ground might be. Although I would like to state that my actions would change depending on the severity of the consequences, for example; I would in a heart beat change the direction of the train if my family member's where on the track.
Utilitarianism seems to be a subset of consequentialism- the potential consequences of an act are examined and weighed against each other in order to make a 'moral' decision. This opposes categoricalism, where morality is determined through certain responsibilities and rights that each human has, regardless of potential consequences.
I would like to shift away from the topic of cannibalism, but move to a topic that has similar moral dilemmas; the topic which I did my Oral on last year- drone strikes in Pakistan. This seems to be a very utilitarian strategy of the CIA's- to protect millions of Americans at the expense of a comparatively few Pakistanis. While this seems to make sense- an entire nation is being protected from a 'threat', the morality of the execution of the action is not justified to me. While this may be due to certain patriotic feelings to Pakistan, I do not think that this is entirely the case.
Whenever there are examples of utilitarianism being given, I have the impression that people always give the example that there are a certain number of people versus one. But what if it is not only one person suffering? Would utilitarianism be justified if it were 4 people who had to die to save 5? what if it is a civil war where two ethnic groups are fighting, one represents a 51% majority and the other a 49% minority. Would the killing of 49% of a nation's people to 'protect' the other 51% be justified?
There are not precise numbers of how many Pakistanis have been killed in drone strikes in Waziristan, some estimates say many hundred, some even say a few thousand. Does the reliability of the statistics make a difference? Would opinions change if it was told that thousands died instead of hundreds? One of the issues raised by a student in Michael Sandel's lecture was whether cannibalism would be justified if the victim was asked for permission. It is said by some sources that during his army regime, President Musharraf did apparently allow the CIA to send drones to northern Pakistan in the FATA region. Does this still make killing innocent Pakistanis justified for the 'greater good'? And does it matter who gave the consent? It was different in the cannibalism case, as the student said that the victim should be consulted and asked for permission. But in the drone strikes' case, none of the northern Pakistanis were asked if they could have explosives dropped on them and drones circling and spying 24/7, the corrupt American puppet of an army regime was the one who gave the consent. Therefore the question is raised as to what the different degrees of morality are and how they differ depending on who gives permission for an action.
The first of the three questions that were raised at the end was "Do we have certain fundamental rights?" I have always been a firm believer in the idea that anyone is free to do what they want as long as it does not deny someone else of their rights. But after thinking about this more, I have realized that this is not a realistic idea, as everyone will always have an excuse to blame someone for imposing on their rights. Therefore I am even more at a loss than ever at trying to understand what our fundamental rights are are how we can ensure that they are respected. I personally think that it is a direct violation of human rights to spy on people from circling aircraft and to instantly kill people without even any thought of a trial if they are seen to do something even remotely suspicious, and to justify the death of innocent people as doing it for a 'greater cause.'
But, as many still argue, in essence drone strikes in Pakistan are moral if we look at them in a utilitarian perspective just as cannibalism can by many people be completely justified. But I myself do not believe that the utilitarian approach is in any way fit to judge what moral actions to be taken. Not everything is about measuring gain against loss, there are deeper things at play. But the problem is that these 'deeper' things are so subjective to each person, that it would be impossible to take any action if every individual's circumstances were to be taken into consideration.
Having said that, however much more 'utility' a certain action may have over another, I do not think that we have any right over deciding the fate of another individual- this is the problem I see with utilitarianism.