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.

My IAT test revealed that I have a slight preference for young people over old people. One reason I took this particular test was that I didn’t believe I had any bias against older people. My grandparents have each been very influential figures in my life, and I’ve grown up admiring them. Perhaps the family affiliation neutralizes a bias against older people. My results align with the dominant preference. I don’t know why Americans tend to have bias against older people, but I think that it is a more subtle predisposition that often goes unnoticed. I wonder if the typical young person living in a society where older people are revered would still have a preference for other young people, or if the scores would be reversed.

Concepts that stood out to me from the reading were “self-defeating stereotypes”, and the idea that people might subconsciously endorse a stereotype, even if they consciously reject it.  In my Leadership 102 class with Dr. von Reuden, I learned that people can suffer mental and physical ailments due to the stress of feeling like they are a part of a minority group. For this reason, members of minority groups have shorter lifespans than members of majority groups when other variables are held constant. I was surprised to hear this at first, but the more I thought about it, the more it made sense. The reading mentioned our evolutionary history, and how we have evolved to prioritize being part of the “in-group” (for safety reasons). To feel like a constant outsider is to feel constantly as though a need for survival is not being met. It would be like your brain constantly sending your body signals that you are hungry, even when you just ate. No wonder the increase in stress hormones can have a real, measurable affect on a person’s physical well being.

Our vulnerability to self-defeating stereotypes presents a huge challenge. In order to be perceptive and self aware, we have to understand reasons why others might make quick (often negative) judgements about us. The catch is that even if we consciously choose not to agree with or believe in these negative judgements, the fact that they exist can create doubt and stress in our minds. Maintaining the balance between self belief and maintaining awareness of others criticisms (even if they are unfair and/or baseless) adds another layer of social difficulty for anyone who finds themself in a minority group in their environment.

As I read this passage, one idea that stood out to me is instrumental vs inherent value. At first glance, it seems easy to distinguish between “a means of getting to something else” and something that is “valued for its own sake” (Rainbolt & Dwyer 354). As I read on, however, I realized that it can be difficult to decide whether the means to an end also have their own inherent value.

In addition to pleasure, the book introduces two other types of consequences that can have inherent value: the satisfaction of desires, and the development of talents (Rainbolt & Dwyer 354-5). This idea that happiness and/or moral good can exist in all three forms resonates with me. On a basic level, the pursuit of pleasure and the avoidance of pain can be noble causes. For example, starving, being exposed to the elements, or being chronically sick all cause pain. Many charitable and altruistic efforts focus on eliminating these pains in people’s lives. Remember, the “QUALY” scale from Doing Good Better is all about measuring increases in people’s happiness (or quality of life). Something that brings a person pleasure or eliminates pain does have inherent value.

On the other hand, the satisfaction of desires and the development of talents almost always require that a person endure some sort of pain. You must perform actions that are instrumentally valuable in order to achieve the goal that will satisfy you in the end. In some cases, the instrumental actions can also have their own inherent value. For example, imagine I have a huge exam scheduled for next week. Studying every day isn’t fun or pleasurable, but it will allow me to score better on the test, fulfilling my ultimate goal. Additionally, if I study each day, I will feel more prepared and less stressed on that day, because I know that I am on my way to achieving my goal. The removal of the stress brings me short term pleasure, and is a byproduct of performing non-pleasurable actions which, at first, seemed to only have instrumental value.

I think that by trying to look for inherent value in parts of our lives that seem to only have instrumental value, we can become happier and more resilient people. After all, the pleasure from accomplishing a goal or satisfying a desire exists in a given moment, but it is usually outlasted and outweighed by the time and energy spent pursuing the goal. In other words, we should look at the journey as part of the reward.