Ethical Dilemma
The perception of moral responsibility and the correctness of a choice often depend not only on individual ideas but also on generally accepted norms of behavior. An opportunity to address the classic train dilemma by assessing the consequences and explaining specific solutions is a convenient tool to discuss the drivers that affect specific motives. At the same time, the nuances of this dilemma require assessing various factors, and in some cases, an individual vision of the problem is the only explanation for a certain reaction. Decisions that entail actions determine the degree of responsibility and reflect real intentions, but moral norms and values are constraints that complicate the decision-making process.
Basic Dilemma Analysis
The original train dilemma suggests choosing how many children can be doomed to certain death – five or one. In the context of this condition, inaction is unacceptable since it is tantamount to action. To assess this situation, one can apply the theories of utilitarianism and deontology discussed by Gawronski and Beer (2017) in relation to the train dilemma. According to the authors, the first approach presupposes actions whose moral status depends on outcomes, while the deontological theory explains specific decisions in terms of moral norms (Gawronski & Beer, 2017). For the dilemma in question, the concept of moral standards is unacceptable because at least one death is inevitable. Consequently, the utilitarian approach is more appropriate, and throwing the switch to allow one child to die is a more objective solution. This practical position is due to lesser consequences since the lives of five people are objectively more valuable than that of one, despite the fact that they are children. Therefore, the utilitarian approach simplifies the assessment of this dilemma and allows making a choice in favor of fewer victims.
Train Dilemma: An Elderly Man’s Role
One of the main fears that the proposed circumstances of the dilemma carry are a personal responsibility for the death of at least one person. In case the participation of an elderly person is included in the condition, this changes perception slightly. Inaction is still tantamount to action, and it is impossible to avoid responsibility. This means that the aforementioned concept of utilitarianism is relevant to this scenario. The death of an elderly person is viewed in a less tragic context than the death of one or more children. Therefore, when taking into account universal human values, stopping a train by pushing will have less severe implications and be justified from the utilitarian perspective.
Train Dilemma: One’s Child
The role of one child as one’s own makes resolving the presented ethical dilemma as difficult as possible. As Bostyn et al. (2018) argue, fears of such tasks determine the differences between the predictive assessment of scenarios and real actions, which, as a rule, are determined by cognitive-behavioral factors. The value of family and kinship, in this case, outweighs any other aspects, and the aforementioned pragmatic approach to avoid the death of more children is irrelevant. Being able to save one’s own child overrides objective perspectives, and throwing the switch to save the others is an unlikely outcome for the vast majority of parents. The main implication is to preserve the life of one’s loved one, and applying theoretical concepts and other analysis tools is nonsensical.
Conclusion
Despite the degree of responsibility that a person experiences in assessing the presented train dilemma, certain factors, for instance, moral and humanistic principles, make it difficult to resolve it. The concepts of utilitarianism and deontology can be utilized as approaches to analysis. The death of one child is a reasonable outcome from a pragmatic perspective, and an opportunity to save children through the death of an elderly man is a logical consequence. Nevertheless, the participation of one’s child as the participant in the scenario makes all the reasoning meaningless and is a key factor in coming to a specific decision.
References
Bostyn, D. H., Sevenhant, S., & Roets, A. (2018). Of mice, men, and trolleys: Hypothetical judgment versus real-life behavior in trolley-style moral dilemmas. Psychological Science, 29(7), 1084-1093. Web.
Gawronski, B., & Beer, J. S. (2017). What makes moral dilemma judgments “utilitarian” or “deontological”? Social Neuroscience, 12(6), 626-632. Web.