solving the lifeboat dilemma composition
In case presented, In my opinion there is no way to go but I actually am morally compelled to act upon the case that confronts me. I select to use my own strength to throw someone overboard in order to save four lives, including my. In saying that there is no right thing to do, for the reason that in selecting either of the options offered, human life is sacrificed. It is a classic case of “damned if I carry out, damned easily don’t.
Whatever choice I make, Let me end up carrying out the wrong thing. By choosing to use my power to throw someone crazy and destroy him, We am breaking his directly to life.
Basically do nothing, I would personally be responsible for the deaths of 5 people. Though done without objective, throwing that a person person crazy would be the only solution, all things considered, to get upholding the more good. In so doing, I am condemning me personally to guilt and sorrow as decisions that terminate lives are the most unbearable types.
Via a purely utilitarian viewpoint, I would always be choosing the choice that would be the cause of “greater pleasure for the best number of people, happiness competent in this case because survival (Greenspan 119).
Obviously, my choice is the reduced of two evils. In this case, although there is a moral issue presented, this sort of a problem could be solved because one particular obligation overrides the additional in terms of the number of lives which can be saved. This is simply not similar to the trend in Sophie’s Choice in which Sophie is definitely presented with two symmetrical responsibilities. In her case, she had to select from her two daughters or condemn the two to loss of life.
In my circumstance, I i am not motivated with mental attachments to any of those within the lifeboat that would help to make my conflict incapable of deliberation. These people happen to be strangers in my opinion and so, the weight with the obligation could be measured in terms of how many lives I could save which the greater plan of points, purport to the more meaningful decision. Obviously, this decision would be belittled by many. Proponents of the doctrine of the twice effect could view my decision while morally wrong and unjustifiable.
While the twice effect thinking may exculpate those who do something that has unfavorable side-effects, when that actions involves something deliberately meant in order to execute a solution (in my case, using my personal power to put someone overboard), it becomes incorrect. Even if the trigger (in order to save five people) is good, the fact i did a thing harmful to bring about the cause might render the complete decision wrong (McConnell 412). Utilitarian opponents would likewise reject my own notion of selecting the lower of two evils.
Significant moralists might say that human lives are incommensurate, and sacrificing one in place of a increased number will not make that moral (Hill 215). Others would hang something on me of being an moral egoist for selecting personal your survival above all else. Works Cited Greenspan, Patricia H. “Moral Problems and Guilt. Philosophical Studies 43 (1983): 117-125. Hill, Jones E., Junior. “Moral Purity and the Reduced Evil. The Monist 66 (1983): 213-232. McConnell, Terrance. “Moral Dilemmas and Requiring the Impossible. Philosophical Studies 29 (1976): 409-413.
1
- Category: law
- Words: 571
- Pages: 2
- Project Type: Essay