A634.1.5.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

 The train dilemma offers us three scenarios in which there are people on the train tracks and we as the switchperson have to make a choice of pulling a switch that inevitably will kill some people.  The decision we have to make is who we decide will die to save the life of others.  Here are the scenarios:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track only kills one.

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children.  Push an old man into the train which would stop the train and save the five children on the track.

Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children.  Option to switch the train between two tracks. One track kills five children and the other track kills my own child.

In order to make this decision, I have decided to be guided by the CyneFin Framework which is a problem-solving tool that helps you categorize problems into five domains, each one describing a cause-and-effect relationship.  Here is a brief synopsis of the five domains and what they represent as far problem-solving assessment:

Simple Domain: Here the options are clear and apparent to everyone.  You are able to assess the situation, categorize it and then respond with the best practice.  There is only one correct answer and the solution is straightforward.

Complicated Domain:  Here there are multiple correct solutions.  In this case you assess the situation, analyze what you know and then choose the best solution by using good practice.  Generally this domain requires expertise.

Complex Domain: A correct solution is difficult to identify.  The best course of action is to identify patterns and wait for the answer to emerge.  This is the most common domain and requires patience and intuition.

Chaotic Domain: Problems that fall into this domain have not determined cause and effect relationship because they are constantly changing.  In these cases you are not trying to find a solution at first but instead trying to stabilize the situation as fast as possible.  This are generally crisis situations that need immediate attention where order must be established first then once the situation has scaled down to the complicated domain a solution can be found.

Disorder:  Here you do not have a clear direction and instead must gather more information so that you can move into one of the other domains in which you can make a clearer decision.

It may seem that in the train scenario there is no time to think but only react, yet if one is to make such drastic decisions on who must live and who must die, there must be some order of critical thinking and ethical theorizing.  If I were to categorize the three scenarios using the CyneFin Framework I would categorize in the following way:

Scenario #1: Kill five children versus killing only one child

I would categorize this scenario into the simple domain.  It seems the only solution is to save five children as opposed to one child.  One might say that it is unethical to consciously choose to take the life of one child who was not in harm’s way in order to save the lives of five children who were.  In my opinion it is a numbers game.  Now the question I ask myself is the following: would it be considered murder that I killed the child who was not in the line of danger in order to save five children who, for whatever reason, were in the line of danger?  Should one child, who technically was not on the track where the train was travelling, give up his/her life to save the lives of five children who were on the travelled track?  Is it fair to ask this?  Could we say that it was the fate of these children for being on the wrong track?  Even after considering these questions, I still feel ethically, when having to choose, generally speaking and in simple terms, I would choose the option that saves the largest group of people.  If I were to use a theory as a basis for this decision I would say that I would choose from one of the Consequentialist theories which are: The Utilitarian Approach, The Egoistic Approach and the Common Good Approach (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  In this instance I feel the Utilitarian Approach, which can be traced back to the Greek philosopher Epicurus of Samos, would apply best (Bonde & Firenze, 2013). This is said to be one of the most common approaches to making ethical decisions in regards to consequences that affect larger groups of people.  The Utilitarian Approach focuses on comparing the good and bad that is produced by our decisions (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  The idea is to choose the action that causes the least amount of harm.  In this case, choosing to save five children in my opinion causes the least amount of harm. 

Scenario # 2: Kill one old man versus killing five children

This scenario falls more into the complicated domain in my opinion.  There is more than one right answer.  If I follow my original rule of saving as many lives as possible, we could say that sacrificing the old man to save five children would be the most ethical decision.  But, if we theorize ethically on the situation we should ask ourselves if we have the right to designate the sacrifice of this man (against his will) in order to save five children.  The old man has not offered himself to be a martyr and I do not believe we have the right to sacrifice his life for those of the children.  He was not in the line of danger and the children were.  Pushing him into the train in my opinion would be considered murder and is unethical.  In this scenario I would apply the Common Good Approach which was promoted by Plato and Aristotle (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  “This approach to ethics underscores the networked aspects of society and emphasizes respect and compassions for others, especially those who are more vulnerable” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  Although I feel a deep moral obligation to save the life of five children at the expense of one old man, I feel that I do not have the right to decide the validity of the old man’s life and whether or not he should live.  And as I feel the elderly as well as children are one of the most vulnerable members of society, I feel I would choose for the man to live.

 Scenario # 3: Kill my own child or kill five other children

My immediate response to this question is to save my own child.  The only explanation I can give, and the only way I can theorize this ethically, is that I have an emotional attachment to my child and not the other five.  At the end of the day I have to live with the consequences of my decision. I do not think I could live knowing that I sacrificed my child for the five other children who I do not know.  On the other hand, although I would experience massive guilt about the five children that died, I would feel secure in my decision knowing that I had chosen to keep my child safe.  In this case I think the Egoistic Approach, a variation of the utilitarian approach, is the most appropriate theory to apply in this situation as it states that “an individual often uses utilitarian calculation to produce the greatest amount of good for him or herself” (Bonde & Firenze, 2013).  If we must choose to do good it will inevitably begin within our closest circle and aimed at those who we have emotional attachments to.

References

n.d. (2016). The Cynefin Framework: Using the most appropriate problem-solving process. Retrieved March 28, from https://www.mindtools.com/pages/article/cynefin-framework.htm

Snowden, D., & Boone, M. (2007). A Leader's Framework for Decision Making. Harvard Business Review, 85(11), 68-76.

Bonde, S., & Firenze, P. (2013). A framework for making ethical decisions. Retrieved March 28, 2016, from https://www.brown.edu/academics/science-and-technology-studies/framework-making-ethical-decisions

A632.9.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Professor Baba Shiv brings up three important factors in regards to emotion and its role in the decision-making process.  He tells us in his lecture that passion, confidence and the extraction of utility from the experience that we get based on this confidence, affects our decisions.

I have noticed in my experiences at work, that when I am confident and passionate when speaking to my students about their academic careers, that this energy becomes contagious.  My students can feel my excitement and believe in things I tell them regarding education and their future.  Starting college for the first time, especially for adult learners, can be scary and I engage with many hesitate individuals.  I engage my students from the start by being confident about our programs and confident about their ability to be successful.  I am passionate about education and I prove this to them not only through my emotions but also my actions.  I have seen that these kinds of interactions have a positive impact on my student’s success because I let them know that I believe in their abilities to accomplish these academic goals.  They enter our programs with more confidence and passion on their end as well and have a higher chance of succeeding.  Emotionally I was extremely excited, proud and encouraging which I feel these emotions transferred through to my students.

An example of a situation that I did not feel confident about was when I tried to convince one of my friends to make a trip with me.  The trip was something I had to do because I needed to submit some important paperwork in another town.  I did not want to take this trip alone and tried to convince my friend that the trip would be fun and exciting.  Because I knew the town we were going to really had nothing to offer in the means of tourism, my confidence did not show through.  I showed no passion when describing the area and was only able to offer factual details that were less than desirable.  Had I confidently described the many possibilities we had in entertaining ourselves in this town, I may have been able to convince her of the benefits of accompanying me on this trip.  In this situation, I was hesitant, unsure and unrealistic which my friend easily picked up on affecting her decision to come with me.

A632.8.3.RB_PALUGODCAROLYN

Problem solving within multiple contexts requires good critical thinking skills and good perspective.  To be able to move between a simple, complex, complicated and chaotic context takes skill and good-decision making skills. “Effective leaders learn to shift their decision-making styles to match changing business environments” (Snowden & Boone, 2007).   

 One great example of moving and responding within multiple contexts is when I worked for a nonprofit called International Hospital for Children.  Those of us working on these medical missions, found ourselves bouncing around in different contexts, depending on the situation.  First there was the simple context.  This was the routine interviews with  patients and their families, collecting information and categorizing each child depending on their degree of severity.  This is how we decided who got surgery now and who had to wait until our next mission.  Once all the data was collected we moved into the complicated context.  The data needed to be analyzed.  Here is where the expertise of the surgeons and nurses came in.  There were several options and surgeries available.  Based on the interviews and data we decided what kind of surgery, when and what resources were needed.  The situation many times slipped into the complex context.  Children with multiple problems, or serious illnesses or unidentifiable symptoms required further analysis and interpretation.  Their health history was probed, backgrounds were researched and other entities needed to be brought into the decision-making process such as our partnering clinic, government officials and sometimes even other specialist.  All parties needed to communicate well and a well thought out response to the issue needed to be made.  When surgeries went bad or there were complications, the situation could go from complex or complicated to chaotic.  This was the “life or death” decision-making process that needed to be made in the moment and with a top-down control.  Our surgeons being the ones with the expertise in these situations had the last say and the rest of us just followed suit.

When looking back at this experience, I can see how we reached a decision in each context.  During the initial assessment of the patients, it was easy to make decisions since everything was based on straight-forward medical records and data.  When it came time to choose the best candidates for surgery, the complicated context, we used a general assessment process based on a list of questions and standard criteria for each type of surgery.  When and if there were complications during the surgery, the complex context, our surgeons had to become creative.  For example, prior to a brain surgery, the electric drill they were using stopped working, we had limited resources, so we sent someone out to secure an orthodontist hand drill that could drill through bone and the surgeons were able to conduct the surgery.  They needed to use their creative skills.  Lastly, when the situation went chaotic, we had to consider the fastest course of action which was to leave it to the experts, our surgeons.  They had to make decisions on the spot without consulting anyone and only basing it on their life experiences and training.

I feel that the Cynefin Framework provides an improved context for decision-making because it provides guidelines and boundaries for different situations.  First, knowing which context you are in will also alert you to the danger signs attributed to that context.  Second, we have some clear guidelines on how to respond depending on the context.  Third, seeing problems through the Cynefin Framework provides a better visual of the problem at hand and how it can deescalate or escalate, allowing us to prepare for change.  Fourth, the framework provides structure to the decision-making process which can assist in situations of doubt. Lastly, the framework is a reminder of how easily things can spiral out of control and how we need to be prepared for anything.  We cannot remain complacent because we live in an ever changing dynamic environment. As Snowden and Boone tell us "good leadership is not a one-size-fits-all proposition" (Snowden & Boone, 2007).

References

Snowden, D. J., & Boone, M. E. (2007, November). A leader’s framework for decision making. Harvard Business Review. Retrieved from https://hbr.org/2007/11/a-leaders-framework-for-decision-making/