Then he makes it harder. You're a bystander now, 5 men will be killed, but you have the choice to push one fat man into the way of the train and save the other five. Somehow this seems wrong. And my first thought was that it was involving someone against his will who wouldn't have otherwise been involved. But then I realized that's exactly what swerving the trolley in the first scenario would have been too.
So there are questions of how to determine value of humans, there's also a question of choice though, I think. Because if the fat man willingly threw himself in front of the train that would be heroic.
Oh no. scenario one and I'm already stuck!
In both cases you have a choice to make between killing one or five people. In both cases if you do nothing, then the five men will die. Pushing someone onto the tracks just seems like it's always the wrong choice. But what if the stakes were higher? What if you push the guy on or a whole city full of people die?
bleh. this isn't fun anymore.
Oh. here's a good distinction brought up by a student: your choice in the matter. in the first scenario, your involvement is sealed. In the second, it is not. But really I think that's a false distinction as well. If we witness something and have the capability, then we are automatically involved.
Sandel says that what's going on here is two competing standards for decision making: the first is consequential, the second, categorical. Consequential just looks at outcomes, categorical looks at the intrinsic rightness of an action.
So above where I said, pushing someone into the tracks is just always wrong- categorical, but then when I rose the stakes- a whole city of people will die- the consequential standard rose to prominence.
No comments:
Post a Comment