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
No comments:
Post a Comment