|
|
Sunday, November 25, 2007TIME: The Morality QuizMost people answer these wrong. How so? Because they are all different versions of lifeboat ethics. Essentially, the scenarios present situations where the few or one must die in order to save the many. Many people choose the lesser evil -- kill the few. This having been said, there's a moral problem to choosing one or the other, if you believe individuals are to be respected as such. Most respondents will (rightly) agonize over the choice in a classroom setting... a good sign. Still, many will answer one way or another. Tricky utilitarianists will make the argument that because one has chosen to throw one life overboard for the betterment of the majority, this argues for a whole host of concepts (abortion, slavery, necessity of the Third World) that we may find morally distasteful, but nonetheless are chosen -- and at times tolerated by -- societies and governments. Of course, what is being argued isn't a case of utilitarianism in the purest sense, but proportionalism. Proportionalist ethics make the argument that one can do evil and affect good -- a contradiction in the highest regard. Hence where lifeboat ethics ultimately fail. As the captain of the boat, it holds 800 lbs. of weight, and there are 1200 lbs. of person. As the boat rapidly fills with water, you state the situation to the crew and ask for volunteers. None reply. What do you do? Let's put it another way, as TIME Magazine offers many alternatives: An out of control trolley is heading down a track toward five unsuspecting people and will surely kill them all. You could throw a switch diverting it to a siding, but an equally unsuspecting man is standing there and the train will kill him instead. Could you throw the switch, killing one to save five?What if you could take the place of the man. Would you? Better yet, what if you knew the boat could only hold 800 lbs. and there were 1000 lbs. of crew on the boat. Would you throw your 200 lbs. body overboard to save the rest? That is the real answer to these questions. Given rational actors, what would they choose for themselves? Better yet, would you be prepared to make a similar sacrifice? The endgame becomes a bit more clear at this point. If chosen on your behalf, the act becomes morally questionable. If freely chosen, the act becomes honorable. Free will and voluntary actors are the crux of the argument. It's too bad the "quiz" never addresses this, and allows for moral ambiguity to muddy an otherwise beneficial thought experiment.
|
|
JEFFERSONIAD POLL: Whom do you support for Virginia Attorney General?1) John Brownlee2) Ken Cuccinelli AboutShaunKenney.com is one of Virginia's oldest political blogs, focusing on the role of religion and politics in public life. Shaun Kenney, 30, lives in Fluvanna County, Virginia.ContactThe Jeffersoniad
ArchivesMarch 2002 April 2002 May 2002 June 2002 July 2002 August 2002 September 2002 October 2002 November 2002 December 2002 January 2003 February 2003 March 2003 April 2003 May 2003 June 2003 July 2003 August 2003 September 2003 October 2003 November 2003 December 2003 January 2004 February 2004 March 2004 April 2004 May 2004 June 2004 July 2004 August 2004 September 2004 October 2004 November 2004 December 2004 January 2005 February 2005 June 2005 July 2005 August 2005 September 2005 October 2005 November 2005 December 2005 January 2006 February 2006 March 2006 April 2006 May 2006 June 2006 July 2006 August 2006 September 2006 October 2006 November 2006 December 2006 January 2007 February 2007 April 2007 June 2007 July 2007 August 2007 September 2007 October 2007 November 2007 December 2007 January 2008 February 2008 March 2008 April 2008 May 2008 June 2008 July 2008 August 2008 September 2008 October 2008 November 2008 December 2008 January 2009
|
|
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Home