Moral Dilemmas: What To Do?

Today we present three great moral dilemmas that represent paradoxical situations in which essential values ​​are contradicted. In these scenarios, it is impossible not to cause harm. What needs to be assessed is which of the options causes less harm and / or which of the alternatives allows for greater ethical consistency.

One of the best known moral dilemmas is the bogie problem. A train runs at full speed and runs into five people tied to the tracks. While you can press a button to change rails, there is also a person tied to the rail in the new route.

In this case, the dilemma lies in what to do. Is it morally more acceptable to let the train continue on its way and kill five people, or to deliberately decide to sacrifice the one person tied to the other track? If things took their course, it wouldn’t die. Whoever activates the button will sentence him to death

Three other major moral dilemmas have emerged from this hypothetical situation. That is the man on the roof, the circular track and the man in the garden. Let’s see them

3 moral dilemmas

1. The man on the roof

The man on the roof is one of the moral dilemmas stemming from the bogie problem. The situation is similar: we have a train moving at full speed towards five people tied to the tracks. In this case, the viable option is to throw a large weight on the train to stop it before it reaches the people tied to the tracks.

The only possibility is represented by an obese man who is near the tracks. If he gets thrown on the train, he could stop him and stop the other five people from dying. What should be done? The difference in this case is that an active task must be performed to deliberately end a person’s life.

Utilitarian ethics indicate that the determining factor is the number of victims. So it’s worth sacrificing one life in exchange for five more. Humanistic ethics, on the other hand, indicate something different. The man near the road is in the full exercise of his rights. One of these is the right to life and, therefore, the right not to be used as a means to save others.

2. Moral dilemmas: the circular track

The circular track is a variant of the train dilemma. The situation in this case is given by a loop path , that is a circular path that always returns to the starting point.

Again we have five people tied to the tracks. As in the original dilemma, you have the option of directing the train to another path, but even in this there is a man tied to the tracks. It’s bulky and could stop the train before it turns around and reaches the other five victims. What to do?

The classic train dilemma states that there are only two ways: either one or the other. One inevitable path or the other. In the case of the circular track, the dilemma presents a subtle variation, which implies a more calculated decision: one man is deliberately used – as an obstacle – as a means of saving five others.

3. The man in the garden

The last of the moral dilemmas is the man in the garden. In this case the situation is identical to the original, the difference is that the only way to divert the train is to derail it. This would cause him to fall off a precipice causing him to end up in a garden, where there is a man resting in a hammock.

This means that if you opt for the derailment option, a person who has nothing to do with the situation would end up dying and would be the victim of someone else’s decision. Underlying these dilemmas is the contradiction between saving multiple people or acting against the fundamental rights of an individual.

Finally, a study conducted by Guy Kahane, of the University of Oxford (Great Britain), indicates that subjects who do not have problems seriously injuring someone to save others  show antisocial traits; and that in their daily life they have less scruples about harming others, even when not strictly necessary.