Moral dilemmas are paradoxical situations in which values are contradicted, in these scenarios it is not possible to act in a way that does not cause any harm, it is necessary to evaluate which of the options causes the least damage and / or which of the alternatives helps to maintain greater ethical coherence.
One of the most well-known moral dilemmas is the ‘train dilemma’, in which there is a train that runs at full speed, on its way you will encounter five people who are connected to the railway, however, it is possible to press a button for the train to change its trajectory, with the question that in this new path there is only one person linked to the track.
- In this case.
- The dilemma is deciding what to do.
- The debate lies in the question: is it morally more valid to let the train run its course and kill five people.
- Or deliberately decide that the sacrifice should be that of the other?If things happened.
- That person wouldn’t die.
- Anyone who presses the button makes him lose his life.
From this hypothetical situation emerged several other moral dilemmas, the best known are the man on the roof, the street in a circle and the man in the garden, let us see below what each of them implies.
“There is no courage without dilemma or character that is not forged with elections, but with victories. “- Muriel Barbery-
The man on the roof is one of the moral dilemmas derived from the train box, the situation is similar: there is a train that travels for five people who are related to the track, however, in this case, the option that exists is to shed significant weight in front of the train, to stop it before it reaches those on par.
The only option that exists is an obese man next to the railing, if he is thrown in the direction of the train he could stop him and prevent the other five people from dying, what can I do?The difference in this case is that it is necessary to perform an active task to deliberately end a person’s life.
The ethics of utility emphasize that what counts is the number of victims, therefore it is worth sacrificing a life to save five, human ethics highlight something different, the man standing by the side of the road makes full use of his rights, one of them is the right to life and therefore not serve as a means to save others.
The circular street is a variant similar to the train dilemma. What happens in this case is that there is a street in a circle, that is, a street that makes a circular route and returns to the starting point.
In this case there are five people tied up in the street, it is also possible to start the train to take another route, in it there is a man tied up. It’s big and could stop the train, before I make the circular route and reach the other five victims What can I do?
The classic train dilemma shows that there are only two routes: one or the other, in the case of the circular route, the dilemma has a subtle change, which involves a more calculated decision: is a man used deliberately?As a way to save the other five people.
The third of the moral dilemmas related to the train dilemma is the man in the garden, in this case the situation is the same as in the original, the difference is that the only way to divert the train is to derail it. the train falls off a cliff over a garden, where a man rests in his hammock.
This means that if the person decides to activate the detour, the person who will eventually die is a person who has nothing to do with the situation and who would fall victim to someone else’s decision.
At the heart of all these dilemmas is the contradiction between doing good to more people or taking action that goes against essential rights.
A study by Guy Kahane of oxford University (UK) notes that people who see no problem in seriously harming someone to save others have antisocial traits and, in their daily lives, are less scrupulous in harming others, even if this evil is not useful.