Imagine you find yourself at a railroad switching station. The switch, in its current position, diverts a train onto a length of track with a helpless baby on it.
A train is approaching, but it can’t stop in time. Neither is there time to run and save the baby.
If you throw the switch, the train is diverted onto a length of track on which sits your brand new $350K uninsured Lamborghini Murcielago. Assume no one will die if the car is struck by the train, though I suppose it's reasonable to assume a bit of property damage to the train will ensue.
Would you throw the switch and ruin your expensive car or would you do nothing and allow the baby to die?
The answer is obvious, to most of us, I would expect. You would throw the switch and save the baby.
Changing a few parameters
Here’s what I consider to be the disturbing implication for how we actually live our lives. Suppose I change the drawing to this:
The threat is no longer a train. It’s death by hunger. The track is no longer a train track...it’s a path of consequences, the switch no longer a switch, but a personal decision about how you spend your money (on a really expensive car or on children). And what’s at stake is not a single child’s life, but fifty children. Yep, I’ve changed the hypothetical a lot, but how have I changed the ethical question?
This is the problem. How has this changed ethically? And, if it hasn’t, what does that imply?
Let’s say, for the sake of argument, that $350K would feed and clothe 50 children in the third world until they reached adulthood. As long as there are starving children, why would anyone ever choose to spend that sum of money on a car? Or any amount of money on any luxury?
There are variations on this. In one, the helpless baby is still there, but if you throw the switch the train will plunge into a ravine killing all on board because a bridge over the ravine has just collapsed.
ReplyDeleteThis dilemma (two 'lemma') has some interesting philosophies dictating unique answers (especially the HARD second one):
ReplyDelete1. I have been saved by a Loving God who has saved my eternal soul for a lovely heaven when this agony on earth is over. But god does not like bastards and sent AIDs to punish kinky sex doers. So you know for sure that those 50 third world kids are all AIDS bastards/orphans on gods hit list(s). You do them a favor when you buy your twenty passenger van for you, your spouse, and your contracted driver. It is your duty to buy the van.
This dilemma (two 'lemma') has some interesting philosophies dictating unique answers (especially the HARD second one):
ReplyDelete2. My god promises me 36 virgins (never mind that just 3 sexually skilled women know more 'tricks' than I can handle) if I kill the 50 infidel baby warriers. So I must buy the $350K armored vehicle.
This dilemma (two 'lemma') has some interesting philosophies dictating unique answers (especially the HARD second one):
ReplyDeleteEl Shaddah (God of plenty, not "El Cheapo) has caused me to be born in the Western (so called "Christian") world. So it is my duty to spend the money on the vehicle and drive around a lot (carefully staying inside the walls). Sorry if this activity inconviences anybody; that sure is not my fault.
That third one should be numbered "3".
ReplyDeleteAny resemblance between my sarcastic writings and the truth is a matter of me lucking out OR an example of the unwritten principal: "if you say enough words, some of them might be correct"
Caveat: no pinheads were knowingly hurt by the words I wrote -- I hope. :-)
ReplyDelete