The classic argument is the theory of double effect. In short, that theory supports my primary intention and throwing the switch based on its primary effect - to save more than one in five lives. It was not my intention to have the secondary effect of a person's death on the load skates. In the absence of this condition, I have not even imagined harming that person. That I did not use this secondary effect as a real accidental move to save the lives of five people. If that person had not been on the side track, five lives would have been saved by throwing the switch. We first hope to wake up from this nightmare, or find a way to avoid any death, but we don't wake up, nor do we see a third option. Do we throw the switch? For my part, over time, I move on, and throw the switch. Why did I do what I did? Why did I go ahead and throw the switch? What is my reasoning? Now of course in some cases we can weigh one life over another, an adult child. But for this I considered all individuals to be adults, with no characteristic that would have made a moral difference. So, I threw the switch to achieve maximum good. But I sacrificed my life to achieve that good. So it didn’t do much good for one guy on the side track. What gave me the moral license to choose this person for death?
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
|