How shall we live as individuals in the face of decisions about right versus wrong? How shall we handle those occasions when none of the choices are attractive?
When ethics and its influence on humans' decision-making are discussed unintentionally, I think about the rationale behind that decision. Was the conclusion rendered based on facts or emotions? This unwitting thought is because ethics often rationalize events in a binary way; is it right or wrong? Good or bad? Appropriate or inappropriate?
I genuinely believe that one can make a wrong decision while still adhering to ethical standards. At first glance, their conclusion might not seem virtuous, but it sure is logical! To illustrate this, I can refer to the Train Dilemma. When the audience is asked if they would turn the switch to put the train on the side track, the most ethical decision kicks in and gives the positive answer; "Yes, I switch the tracks and kill one person instead of five." In this scenario, the ethical standards dictate that the [switch]person make a quick, solid, and of course, the right decision. So, the train is put on the side rail, assuming that a logical action is taken, one killed versus five, and more lives saved.
Suppose we elaborate further on the train (trolly) problem. In that case, I promise the "killing one against five people" decision would no longer seem logical, regardless that the dilemma continues and calls the single person on the railroad your relative. When I read about this problem the first time, my answer was to keep the train on its original track and kill the five people. It doesn't sound ethical to me either, but I think it is logical, and here is my reasoning: The five men/workers were standing on the main railroad, knowing that there could be a danger. However, on the other track, the one worker, a child, or someone's significant other assumes that the train will move straight using the main trail as usual, and no factor risks his or her life by standing on an "unused/abandoned" track. Would you kill an innocent individual who has chosen a safe corner for themselves or five idiots who endanger their and others' safety?
It takes only a small adjustment and rephrasing the sentence to alter the utilitarian minds. With minimal facts given for a circumstance, any thoughtful judgment based on ethical standards will return unfair and unjustified results. Wolford (2018) states that per utilitarians' ideology, the most ethical decision is the one that offers the best benefits for the majority. I may sound judgemental, which is not my intention. There have been times that I have caught myself making superficial decisions assuming there are the right calls just because they meet my ethical standards! I have to admit that sometimes (but only sometimes), these moral choices (that are not backed by logic) work. However, if the subject matter regards a severe issue, it's rational to anticipate some ramifications.
It becomes easier to judge and conclude when we discover more factors contributing to a circumstance. Some decisions may not sound ethical, but they will be based on fairness, rights, or specific virtues. Ethics create norms and help people to distinguish right from wrong. However, it doesn't imply much about justice. "It is important that we consistently and continually put the effort in studying and be mindful of our moral manners and beliefs, ensuring that we are a part of a society that helps shape and live up to the standards that are not only ethical but also are logical, rational, and well-grounded" (Wolford, E. 2018).
Reference
Wolford, E. (2018, June 22). The train dilemma: When no choice is a good one! LinkedIn. Retrieved March 26, 2022, from https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/train-dilemma-when-choice-good-one-elvira-g-wolford-shrm-cp-phr/
Comments