I have a weirder one than that.
Here is an ethical hypothetical:
Suppose you are standing on a hill, and you see a train approaching from off in the distance. You are right by a switch. You can see, down the tracks, a group of 10 painters walking along the tracks on a railroad bridge down the tracks from where you stand. You know that they won't be able to get away from the train safely. On the other tracks, you see three children, playing on the tracks. You know that they won't be able to get away from the train safely. What to do?
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
The funny thing is, when I give this hypo to people, they always assume that the train is headed towards the larger group, and the question is, should you flip the switch and kill 3 children to save 10 grown men?
In fact, the way I give the hypo, I don't know which way the train is headed.
Either way, I wouldn't flip the switch. I am the only person I know who wouldn't. I don't particularly believe in fate, but I don't believe that it's my right to make those choice.
What if one of the children was my child? What if one of the men was my husband? Maybe somebody else could make that choice but I couldn't.
Saving Terry Schiavo is easy. The default is life. If she wanted to die, she should have written out a living will stating this clearly and unambiguously. What she is alleged to have told her husband is hearsay. As events have shown, he has a conflict of interest. |
