Interesting and very relevant to our current TOK Unit!

Here it is

http://gawker.com/gay-art-school-student-to-lose-anal-virginity-in-front-1451749816

What is justice? what is the right thing to do?

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.