Moral Living

The below question is what is asked of me this week:


Reflect on the three key lessons you take away from the course. Reflect on your perceived value of this course.

This is a difficult question to answer as if you try to isolate three components of morality I feel that you’re missing something. Morality and ethical living are less lessons and more a way of life. You can focus on a component such as crime and punishment or gun control. You can examine policies such as affirmative action or euthanasia. You can even study philosophies such as deontology or consequentialism and still miss the point. Taking a deontological or consequentialist view of a given moral quandary may provide a foundation from which to deconstruct affirmative action or euthanasia but it doesn’t provide the impetus to do anything about it.

Instead, what I take away from studying ethics and morality is that it is a constant process. There are more than two ways, or even four or five ways to look at a given problem. Every choice will have consequences and every choice can harm or help the greater number of people. You can serve the greater good and still hurt individuals. You can help individuals and hurt the greater good. Morality isn’t a black and white adventure it’s a constant shifting of variables and conflicting values that must be weighed against your own view of morality. I do hold that there are moral truths and that moral relativity can be a lazy excuse to avoid offending someone. Nothing in this course has made me think otherwise regarding relativity. Just because a culture has a norm that subjugates women doesn’t make it morally correct even if one can find women in that culture that agree with subjugation. What minimizes one of us ultimately minimizes all of us.

Despite my protestations over moral relativity the study of ethics is invaluable, especially to anyone that wants to lead. One has to reflect on all points of view and assign them value and that cannot be done without a frame of reference in which to operate. This is why I usually find the lessons on the philosophies themselves to be of the greatest use. Additionally, studying racism and policies such as affirmative action are invaluable as they force one to look at something other than themselves. Anyone that says they oppose affirmative action as they themselves are not racist and slaves are no longer owned is missing the point. They are making it about themselves.









Morality isn’t about how you effect yourself but how you effect the world around you. Even those of that love isolating still need others to produce a society safe and healthy enough to sit in splendid isolation. We are a social species and while doing good things may feel good (and thus be about one’s self) the inescapable fact is that someone else was also affected. Studying ethics forces you to look at the bigger picture. I honestly feel that if you simply seek you better yourself through moral living you have it backwards. Instead one can study ethics in order to be better for others and by natural consequence be better yourself.

Gun Control: An Uneasy Balance

Gun Control: An Uneasy Balance

In the Practice of Ethics LaFollette attempts to answer if gun ownership is a right and he does so by balance a right against the safety of society (LaFollette, 2007). And I do tend to agree that owning a weapon is not a fundamental right in an ethical sense. LaFollette states that owning a gun does not advance a person in such a fashion as to improve their life or maintain their life (LaFollette, 2007) whereas food and access to shelter and clothing are fundamental rights a gun does not advance those rights, it can merely defend them.  Additionally citizenry can form together for protection and establish governments to provide for common interest and protection. All of that being said the right to self-defense is a fundamental right and in a country awash in firearms debating if they are fundamental rights is akin to closing the barn door after the horses have long left.

The gun control argument in the United States is one that is consistently re-ignited after one of the frequent mass shootings the US endures.  The problem is so prevalent that, for the US, one can find lists of mass shootings categorized by year. This post will not concern itself with discussing whether or not there is a problem with gun deaths in the US.  The CDC lists 33,726 firearm related deaths in its most current data. If another country were killing 33,000 US citizens a year there would be a call for war. The gun control argument is often subject to many false comparisons and logical fallacies. There are those that argue vehicles kill about the same number of people per year. While this may be true a vehicle’s sole purpose is not to kill or injure; and fatalities occur when a car is used improperly. Such fallacies can be discarded.

When discussing gun control it is better to focus on the statistics from guns themselves. There is a correlation between states that are considered to have looser firearm regulations (largely states that lean Right in governance) and firearm deaths: states that have looser restrictions on firearms tend to have greater numbers of per capita gun deaths.  Cities that border states with loose gun control laws, like Chicago does Indiana, also have high numbers of gun deaths as weapons are easily transportable across state lines. Hawaii, which is an island and has strict gun control laws, has the lowest number of per capita gun deaths.  Hawaii also has the benefit of being able to control its borders. The argument that gun control does not work is intellectually dishonest. While many who argue for gun control use other countries as examples and indeed Japan, Australia, Canada, France, The UK, and a host of other First World nations do have gun control laws and low gun death numbers; Hawaii is a US state.

The argument isn’t if gun control works because it can if it is evenly applied. The argument is how much regulation is appropriate. In Heller vs District of Columbia the Supreme Court ruled that states can regulate access to firearms.  This is balanced against the Second Amendment which allows for the private ownership of weapons.

Is it ethical to restrict firearm ownership? Yes it is. There are already restrictions on what a private person can legally own. You won’t see nuclear weapons listed for sale alongside pistols in your local gun store and access to automatic weapons or surplus military hardware is subject to very strict controls. It is ethical to restrict speech in the interest of public safety as there are laws against inciting riots or libel and slander. If one amendment can be restricted for safety than all can be restricted for safety to suggest that nothing be limited negates the point of having a law against anything. The argument that the second amendment is inviolate is emotional rather than logical. While there is a right to own firearms there can be limitations on what type and of what capacity. We have an ethical obligation to see to the safety of each other and the argument that large numbers of private firearm ownership guarantees that safety is also easily discarded. Anecdotal evidence that private firearm ownership prevents crime is easy to find. It makes sense that in a country where firearms outnumber the population the law of averages dictates that sooner or later a person will stop a crime. Actual, empirical evidence suggests that increased gun ownership increases the chances of crime (Pappas, 2015).

We are left with the usual detriment of democracy; that somehow an argument based on emotion and bad information is somehow equal to one based on reason and evidence.  Evidence strongly suggests that unregulated firearm ownership is hazardous to the safety of society. If we accept that it is morally ethical to wish that a society is safe than we must place limits on what people can and can’t do with weapons. If a person wishes to argue that the individual desires are placed above the safety of a society than they are arguing from a position of selfishness.

LaFollette, H. (2007). The practice of ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Pub.

All Injuries. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/injury.htm

Firearm Mortality by State: 2014. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/pressroom/sosmap/firearm.htm

Hawaii Gun Control Laws - FindLaw. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://statelaws.findlaw.com/hawaii-law/hawaii-gun-control-laws.html

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER. (n.d.). Retrieved December 08, 2016, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Pappas, S. (2015, July 6). Guns Don't Deter Crime, Study Finds. Retrieved December 08, 2016, from http://www.livescience.com/51446-guns-do-not-deter-crime.html

Workplace Values

This week’s blog is to discuss the following: “...discuss how your organization portrays its values. Share any examples where behaviors were portrayed positively by your leaders or an instance where someone was unethical in your work environment.”



Normally I would link to a website that portrays my organization’s ethics statement. We have one! However, these blogs are published openly and while some may know for whom I work I prefer to keep my workplace somewhat private. That in and of itself can provide some insight into what values I see portrayed where I work. To be clear, I work for an organization that does amazing work and, quite literally changes lives and saves lives. However, they are very image conscious. One of the things I hope to teach my clients is that one does not stop representing an organization just because you are “off the clock.”

I do work in healthcare and healthcare has many ethical conundrums that crop up nearly every day. Do we let a patient die that voiced a desire to sign a “do not resuscitate” order but became unconscious before it was signed? Do we let a patient become homeless in order to gain them access to better medical care? Or even on a simpler level…in my line of work I am required to be available in blizzards and other types of inclement weather should a need arise to bring patients in from the elements. At what point should my boss order me out? What ethical obligations does my boss have to protect my safety balanced against the needs of the patients? It could be argued that I signed up for the job so my boss’ obligations should lean towards the patient (a stance with which I agree) but my boss still has to make a judgement call.

Recently the office was contaminated by bedbugs. For those that don’t know, bedbugs are a serious concern for medical facilities. And while my office is not the hospital many patients that are served at the hospital also utilize our services. Bedbugs reproduce rapidly, and they can be carried home by workers without knowing it. They are very pervasive if left unchecked. So it happened that a client brought bedbugs into our office. My boss had to make a choice over closing the office or risking the staff bringing infestations home with them. In the end my boss chose to close the office and incurred some displeasure from higher management. However, higher management was dragging their feet in giving an answer.

My boss made a decision on the side of safety for her workers. This is an ethical decision. It isn’t a great leap of philosophy to state that making a choice to keep people safe is ethical unless we are discussing a situation where others could be hurt through the act of making one person safe. Our particular work can be time-sensitive but largely isn’t. No patient safety was compromised by our office closing for a day (actually two as one day was when pest control was fumigating the building). However, the upper levels of management were upset that they were not the ones making the decision. Policy-wise only upper management can close a facility so they were correct in reminding my boss of that fact. However, she still had to make a timely call to protect her workers. Was upper-management being unethical in their delay?

I would argue no they were not but they may have forgotten a leadership concept. Workers become unsure of leadership when leadership cannot make a decision. Workers also do not always have access to the same information leadership can access. Nor are workers aware of the daily schedules of some leaders. In essence, they are working in a partial vacuum when situations arise that require some degree of timeliness. What is important to the workers who are attempting to plan their week or arrange childcare is that they have an answer on what direction to go. If this information is not forthcoming they begin to lose faith.



Ethical leadership is more than just trying to make ethical decisions. One can be an ethical leader and still be a bad leader. Good, ethical leadership seeks to understand under what conditions the people that look to you for guidance are laboring under. While this situation was relatively benign the lesson is that one must take a look at how you look from the other end of decision chain.

Virtuous Living

Virtuous Living

Benjamin Franklin should be a well-known name to anyone living (or rather raised and educated) in the United States.  He was a statesman, author, tinkerer, diplomat, and quite possibly a very busy ladies man (Ecenbarger, 1990).  And while it may seem odd to take moral guidance from a man who had numerous affairs his advice isn’t always bad. Franklin listed 13 virtues for healthy living and they are silence, order, resolution, frugality, sincerity, justice, moderation, cleanliness, tranquility, chastity, and humility. Franklin certainty didn’t live up to his own chastity standards but his overall message is still a good message.

I have been asked to choose three of these virtues and how I apply them to my own life.

Silence: Let me start by saying that silence is golden.  I have read that we have two ears and one mouth so that we may only speak half of what we hear. Franklin wasn’t saying that we should never speak. He was saying that our interactions should have value. We should seek to add to the conversation or ideas and simply speak to hear our own voices.  I find this virtue to be personally agreeable, as I don’t do well with idle chitchat. That being said, it has its place. Being a good conversationalist can go a long way towards making quality friends and developing good relationships. I tend to think of this virtue as avoiding malicious speech and not gossiping.

Tranquility: It probably comes as no surprise that someone that values silence also values tranquility. But Franklin was referring to not being upset over trifles. This is something I apply daily. Maybe the virtue of my work has exposed me to how truly bad the human condition can be or maybe my own dealing’s with a life-threatening infection two years ago but I see no point in getting worked up over small issues. For that matter, I rarely let myself get too worked up over major issues. Instead I try to approach situations with a sense of rationality.

Frugality: Here is a virtue with which I have struggled in the past. I tend to be generous, both to myself and with others; I have a decent income yet I occasionally still find myself wondering where all the money went at the end of the month. I have been devoting a lot of effort into developing this virtue. I pay attention to a budget. I make almost all of my purchases with cash rather than credit and I’ve learned to not give in to impulse buying.  It hasn’t been an easy lesson to learn and I still find myself thinking, “well it’s only ten dollars” which is a dangerous line of thought!

Virtuous values are something that people develop.  Benjamin Franklin may have had vices, but who among us doesn’t?  We can often aspire to virtuous traits and still fall short. The danger comes in rationalizing away our shortcomings.  I would hate to go through life having never failed or fallen short of a goal. How else would we learn perspective? 

References

Ecenbarger, W. (1990, May 6). Ben Franklin`s Dangerous Liaisons. Retrieved from http://articles.chicagotribune.com/1990-05-06/features/9002070774_1_poor-richard-lucy-mercer-franklin-delano-roosevelt

Marketing and Diet

When the first caveman made the first spear he had to sell the idea to other cavemen and thus marketing was born. While I sincerely doubt that is the how the development of spears occurred the basic idea remains the same. Marketing has been around for as long as one group of people had to convince some other group of people that their ideas or products where the way to go. When we talk about marketing we often think of the traditional advertising and selling. Television advertisements, billboards, Times Square and the multitude of images on buildings, and even online advertisements can all be considered traditional or mainstream. Marketing also comes in many other forms. Job interviews are a type of marketing…you are selling yourself to a potential employer and in some cases they are selling themselves to you. The rise of online dating could even be considered marketing, you create a profile on a website and fill it with (hopefully true) things about yourself in an effort to entice someone to respond to your advances.

But is it evil as the title of this week’s assignment suggests? The low hanging ethical fruit of deceptive marketing is of course considered unethical as deception for profit is hard to justify and we will identify an egregious example below. Outright fraudulent statements about competitors are likewise hard to justify but are also low-hanging fruit when it comes to marketing ethics. The Small Business Administration provides resources to the numerous laws governing marketing on their website www.sba.gov should one wish to peruse them.

This post is not a discussion of marketing legal boundaries but rather ethics and there is one area (and possibly more but this blog would digress into a lengthy research project) where marketing can be considered to have breached ethical boundaries and that is “natural foods.”

What are natural foods? From the FDA, “From a food science perspective, it is difficult to define a food product that is 'natural' because the food has probably been processed and is no longer the product of the earth. That said, FDA has not developed a definition for use of the term natural or its derivatives. However, the agency has not objected to the use of the term if the food does not contain added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances (www.fda.gov)” You may notice that doesn’t mean a great deal. Arsenic is naturally occurring but that doesn’t mean that it should be put in your peanut butter. So a manufacturer is free to place any substance they want in your food just so long as it is free from added color, artificial flavors, or synthetic substances. Well it’s a big world with lots of things in it and many of those things, healthy or not, can wind up in what you are eating.

Sugar and its derivatives such as high fructose syrups are considered natural foods by the above definition. The Union of Concerned Scientists states the food industry labels foods as natural while increasing their sugar content. High sugar diets may lead to health concerns such as obesity and high blood pressure. But…it’s natural right? Additionally sugar, and junk food in general, are placed in foods in order to create an addiction among consumers (Moss, 2013). Junk foods reward the dopamine centers of the brain and create addictions in much the same way that certain drugs create addiction. The low nutrient value of these foods ensures that people are hungry again in a few hours and will consume more of these foods.

According to the Urban Child Institute a poor diet, as an infant is linked to a large number of health concerns and they are much more likely to develop significant health problems as they age. Additionally, junk foods are less likely to have minerals such as iron and zinc. Iron and zinc are best sourced from animal proteins and a lack of these minerals can lead to deficiencies in the immune system (Walker et al, 2005).

The food industry is well aware of these concerns and Moss highlights the pressure the food industry puts on scientists and regulators to ensure that the greatest profits are made. Junk food is cheap to produce, addicts its consumers, and provides such low nutritional value that the sole consumption of junk food can lead to medical concerns. By labeling things as “natural” even if they are pumped full of sugar the food industry can market has healthy even when they are anything but healthy. This level of deception is entirely unethical and according to some metrics, sacrificing the health of a population for increased profit could be considered evil.



Truth in Advertising is the key to a Successful Business ... (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from https://prezi.com/z9oeer78twok/truth-in-advertising-is-the-key-to-a-successful-business/



Sugar Coating Science: How the Food Industry Misleads Consumers on Sugar. (2014, June). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.ucsusa.org/center-for-science-and-democracy/sugar-coating-science.html#.WDIGlzKZPR0



What is the meaning of 'natural' on the label of food? (n.d.). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.fda.gov/AboutFDA/Transparency/Basics/ucm214868.htm



Moss, M. (2013, February 20). The Extraordinary Science of Addictive Junk Food. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/24/magazine/the-extraordinary-science-of-junk-food.html



Nutrition and Early Brain Development. (2011, March 25). Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://www.urbanchildinstitute.org/articles/updates/nutrition-and-early-brain-development





Walker, C. F., Kordas, K., & Stoltzfus, A. R. (2005). Interactive effects of iron and zinc on biochemical and functional outcomes in supplementation trials. Retrieved November 20, 2016, from http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/82/1/5.full

Affirmative Action

Is Affirmative Action Ethical?

This week’s blog focuses on affirmative action and seeks to answer if affirmative action is ethical. To me the answer is easy…yes.

The United States has a history of genocide, slavery, legalized discrimination, and significant racial tension. As LaFollette states in the Practice of Ethics, the US didn’t outlaw racial discrimination until the 1960s. (LaFollette, 2007) This legalized discrimination effectively economically hobbled an entire class of people. This video explains the effects this “hobbling” has had far better than I ever could, and while it may not be academic it certainly offers perspective. Even if we assume that racism has ended (it hasn’t) past racial discrimination has led to underemployment, housing segregation, poor schools, high interest rate loans, and poor healthcare. LaFollette also states that black families were unable to pass along as much accumulated wealth to their children thereby adding to the ever-increasing distance a black child will have to go in order to even be even with a white child.

Affirmative action seeks to remove some of those barriers by allowing minorities to move into roles that they otherwise would not be able to obtain, no matter how qualified they may be. It isn’t enough to say “well if they are qualified they will be selected” as it is often the case a minority doesn’t get the chance to have their qualifications heard.

This past year much has been said about “white privilege” and the backlash to such a concept serves as both a counter-point and a validation for affirmative action. How do you explain to a poor white child from a very rural area that they have privilege? In 1989 a woman by the name of Peggy Macintosh wrote an article for Peace and Freedom Magazine called “Unpacking the Invisible Backback.” This article is published on the National SEED Project’s website and can be accessed here. It is an amazing read but the short version is the “backpack” is a metaphor for the various privileges that are conferred upon whites, and mostly referring to white men. When explaining privilege to the poor, white child we must first move past the idea that privilege is something that is conferred or bestowed. As Macintosh infers, white privilege simply…is.

I am a 37 year old white male. I am heterosexual. I am college educated. I am from an upper-middle class background. I am neither obese nor am I too skinny. Every demographic feature I possess places me in a position to not be followed in a store, to not be immediately disregarded by lenders, and to not be targeted by police. I live in an apartment that is in a low-crime area. I am free from a minutiae of barriers and harassment that occur every day in the life of minority. I will never know what it like to be a black man in the United States (or any other minority) and neither will our hypothetical poor, white child.

It is true that poverty is a barrier and that barrier can be tough to overcome if you live in a disadvantaged area no matter your ethnicity. However, if we place the poor white child and the poor black child on the same starting line, the black child will, speaking from statistics, have many more barriers on their way to prosperity.

Ms. Macintosh makes my argument more eloquently than I ever could. Equal rights are a passion of mine. I firmly believe that we all deserve to live the lives we are capable of; free from persecution. It may be a bit of a pipe dream but regulations such as affirmative action are the tools with which we can begin to level the playing field. So is affirmative action ethical? Yes but more so…it is vital.

Falls From Grace

This week’s blog focuses on the character and personality changes that occur as a leader gains power; specifically the focus is on societal, professional, and personal dilemmas. The article can be found here and it is an excellent read.

Kramer does not discuss the inherent psychopathy inherent in many leaders. Forbes has an excellent article that summarizes various readings and published works regarding this phenomenon and it is also worth a read. Perhaps it is my work in mental health that leads me to pursue a different approach than “power changes” and instead look at it from the perspective of “to achieve the highest level of power there had to be underlying personality traits to be begin with” While Kramer holds a PhD in psychology it is in the realm of possibility that he has focused on one question and hasn’t asked the other. While that is pure speculation it does seem to be that way from the tone of his article.

As Kramer suggested there is a heady rush that comes with power. This heady rush and lack of constraints could bring to the surface underlying negative personality traits that are normally held in check by societal norms. Psychopathy, in the clinical sense, does not mean one is constantly “crazy” or is acting out in a strange fashion. Indeed many high-functioning people with mental health disorders are able to keep their impulses or negative thoughts in check by understanding that negative consequences can occur should they not do so. Remove those constraints and the negative traits can begin to surface.

As Kramer also listed several CEOs that remained grounded it is obvious that my perspective is not true across all cases however even Kramer’s suggested guidelines would not be applied to all successful leaders.

I think the larger problem is that we, as a society, admire people who are able to break the rules and succeed. We are not so forgiving of people who break the rules and do not succeed. Various news outlets will demonize a welfare recipient for finding a loophole and gaining an extra few bucks a month and then turn around and praise a billionaire for finding a loophole that allows for the avoidance of millions of dollars in taxes. This admiration bleeds over into Kramer’s argument that power gives people the feeling of being above the rules.

Personally and professionally I attempt to conduct myself according to a value system based around compassion, a sense of duty, and respect for others. I continually attempt to see things from the other party’s point of view. I feel this makes me a better person but it also makes me a shrewd negotiator and I’ve used that skill to negotiate favorable deals while selling a home or while selling a business proposal. I think that in order to keep this in check, and this is consistent with Kramer’s argument, a sense of self awareness is crucial to staying grounded. To this I would add that a strong emotional intelligence is also required. The two are similar but emotional intelligence requires us to be more in tune with how we feel in addition to just knowing our strengths and flaws. Morally, negotiating a favorable business arrangement isn’t incorrect. However, knowing a business move will cause deliberate harm can be considered immoral. Competitiveness can make that a blurry distinction and sharpening that distinction is not the focus of this post. Kramer makes a fine point about leadership and falls from grace but I wonder if they who fell from grace were victims of their own disorders?

Kramer, R. (2003, October). The Harder They Fall. Harvard Business Review,81(10), 58-66. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://web.b.ebscohost.com.ezproxy.libproxy.db.erau.edu/ehost/detail/detail?sid=4b2073fb-01ee-4b15-a680-5fbbc535885b@sessionmgr107&vid=0&hid=107&bda=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ==#AN=10986098&db=bth



Lipman, V. (2013, April 25). The Disturbing Link Between Psychopathy and Leadership. Retrieved November 5, 2016, from http://www.forbes.com/sites/victorlipman/2013/04/25/the-disturbing-link-between-psychopathy-and-leadership/#6c9842b32740

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism

Deontology Vs. Consequentialism


Two of the major schools of philosophical thought are consequentialism and deontology. Consequentialism argues that when one seeks to find normative properties depend on the consequences of an action. (Sinnott-Armstrong, 2003) in other words, the ends can justify the means. Taken to its absurd conclusion, it would ethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients to save others if the “others” were of better benefit to society. A homeless person that was terminal could be used to save the life of a scientist or researcher that was close to the cure of a major disease even if the homeless person had not previously consented to having his organs harvested. After all it would be better for society to have a researcher alive than a homeless person that is using resources without contributing to society. While it is opinion I feel safe in saying that most would agree that it is unethical to harvest the organs of non-consensual patients. Consequentialism, at its absurd end would disagree.

Utilitarianism, being part of consequentialism, argues that we should work towards normative actions that are also part of the greater good. In our earlier example with a homeless person, it may be considered ethical to harvest the organs of all deceased homeless persons to prolong the life of other people who may go on to contribute to society. Again, this is an absurd conclusion.

Deontology, on the other hand, argues that Kantian principles of a categorical imperative, or a duty that is consistent across all people, should guide normative actions. (Alexander, 2007) In other words, moral and ethical norms guide decisions instead of consequences. Back to our example of our homeless man, if our ethical norm is that organs should not be harvested from non-consensual patients no matter the need, than we cannot harvest them no matter how many researches we may save.

However even deontology can be taken to its absurd end. If we assume that killing for any purpose is morally wrong, than we could not kill in self-defense or in a war where we are attacked.

The above examples serve to not only illustrate the differences between deontology and consequentialism but how they can be taken to their absurd ends. In most ethical dilemmas it is unlikely that most of us sit down decide which school of thought we are going to use. Many of us, who seek to act ethically, often seek to balance harm against good in our actions. That may be consistent with deontological thought or consequential thought. It depends on the given dilemma in front of us. However, understanding both schools of thought allows us a way to better understand our decisions and allows us insight into decisions. By deepening our knowledge of philosophical schools of thought we also begin to internalize processes for ethical decision-making.


















Sinnott-Armstrong, W. (2003, May 20). Consequentialism. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/consequentialism/






Alexander, L. (2007, November 21). Deontological Ethics. Retrieved October 30, 2016, from http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/ethics-deontological/

The Train Dilemma!!

The train dilemma is a common thought-problem that pops up in most any ethical discussion. Below are my responses. In this question I assume the children are innocent. The old man presents a host of unknowns, some of which I will address.

A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch?

This one is fairly easy for me to answer as it’s just a basic utilitarian response. Of course I’d throw the switch and save five children to save one. Assuming that all the children are equal and with equal potential I’d save the five. However, should the five children be deficient in some manner and the single child be a prodigy I may choose to save the child that can benefit society the greatest. While such a thought is abhorrent and reeks of eugenics the point of this question is to look past the obvious. The utilitarian in me says that I should seek to save that which benefits all of us the most.

You are standing next to an elderly man. If you push him in front of the train it will stop the train and all the children will be saved. Will you push him?

Is the old man a doctor, a surgeon, a great thinker, or a researcher with a cure for disease? If so I would choose to save the old man though he may hate me for it (and I’d probably hate myself.) The children are untested variables and may grow into great thinkers or great criminals. We don’t know what they are going to do and thus their potential cannot be considered if a known variable (provided this variable is a great positive) is available.

Should I know nothing about the old man, I would choose to save the children. The children do possess potential and the old man may be near the end of his. All other things being equal it is better to save future potential than potential that has run its course.

Same scenario except: The one child on the side track is your child. Will you throw the switch to save the five children?

In some ways this isn’t a fair question as it ignores the biological imperative we have to protect our own children. Of course not everyone has a need to protect their own children and we see them paraded on the news as monsters. This is not a label that I entirely disagree with though I find dehumanizing anyone to be path to moral ruin.  If I apply the same logic as I did in question two and my child is a person of low potential, I should save the old man. However, such an act would be beyond the pale and the idea of being able to sacrifice my child for the greater good is not one that I could accept.  It is an interesting question as it tests one’s resolve to a moral purity but moral purity cannot overcome such a strong biological drive as protecting one’s own child.