Dr. Hidalgo mentions a thought experiment where a doctor can either (secretly) kill a healthy person and use their organs to save the lives of five unwell people, or do nothing and assume that the five will die and the one will live (Hidalgo 13). This dilemma reminded me of the train track question from class. It seems like a slightly different question, but upon review, I think that they are the same question, just framed differently. In both cases, the death of either one or five people is inevitable. A set of circumstances exists that will lead to the death of the five, assuming no action is taken. In order to prevent the most possible people from dying, an actor must pull someone out of safety and into harm’s way. In each case, one must choose between the consequentialist and deontic rationale. The former would have you kill the one person, while the latter would have you take no action.
In class, I found myself gravitating toward pulling the lever and killing one person for the sake of the other five. I found the doctor example, although fundamentally the same scenario, more troubling. Perhaps the transparency of the train scenario makes it an easier decision. Everyone present can see what is going to happen and why. On the other hand, the though of deciding to deceive a patient who believes that they are in good hands adds a layer of ethical “bad”. I might lean more toward the deontic argument for the doctor example, because the action itself feels much worse, regardless of the positive consequences. These examples illustrate how small contextual changes can influence our reasoning and how we go about evaluating moral arguments.
I agree that this scenario is also more difficult, for I think it is the idea of taking an individual, who really had no reason to be in danger, and knowingly putting them in danger and killing them is what makes the difference. In the train scenario, either the 5 people or 1 person would die; however, in this scenario, only the 5 unhealthy people are in danger, while the one healthy person is not in immediate danger. It is this knowing, willing, and intentionality of placing an individual who was healthy and not in danger and putting them in danger, even if it will save the lives of 5people.
I agree that this scenario is also more difficult, for I think it is the idea of taking an individual, who really had no reason to be in danger, and knowingly putting them in danger and killing them is what makes the difference. In the train scenario, either the 5 people or 1 person would die; however, in this scenario, only the 5 unhealthy people are in danger, while the one healthy person is not in immediate danger. It is this knowing, willing, and intentionality of placing an individual who was healthy and not in danger and putting them in danger, even if it will save the lives of 5 people, that I think makes this scenario different and more difficult to choose.
I thought this scenario was incredibly thought-provoking because it includes that extra element/layer of having to do the killing with your own hands, instead of just pulling a lever or saying something out loud. When you are directly responsible for the action you cause, it adds so much more guilt to the action. I realized that I, personally, would ultimately leave the 5 unwell people to die in this scenario, because I could never see myself intentionally and personally taking the life of another person, which I think says a lot about our ethics and how we perceive morality.
I think that the main difference here is really being a bystander versus taking an active role in the process, which generates different feelings. In the train track example, the participant is at least distanced from the act of having the train switch tracks, while in the doctor’s example, the doctor obviously plays such a significant role in determining the outcome and fate of the patients. Furthermore, I think that the active role the doctor plays in the second example absolutely evokes more of an emotional appeal, which we know has a significant effect on us.