How do you
decide what is right and what is wrong?
Do you think that 'right' and 'wrong' exist as absolute, objective
things that are beyond revision? Do you
think that they are given to us, perhaps by a creator, or do you think that
humans define their own morals?
Tough
questions. They may not pop into your
mind often, but they have increasingly been appearing in mine.
I have been
giving some consideration to what I think is right and wrong, but more
consideration still to how it is that I should determine what is right and
wrong. Perhaps you live your life
according to a list of set in stone rules or maxims, like 'thou shall not kill/
steal', etc.
After a
little consideration, any list of absolute rules soon reveals itself as insufficient. Even common sense, fundamental rules that may
seem unarguable or uncontroversial at first, soon crumble when applied to real
life circumstances. Let's take a simple
premise such as 'it is wrong to kill'.
Soldiers cannot live by any such rule and yet they are not, generally,
considered evil or immoral. The rule is
too general as it is in this form, think about the number of animals killed for
human consumption, a good deal of people don't see this as wrong. We may think we can strengthen the rule by
adding some qualification or other, so how about 'it is wrong to kill an
innocent human being'. Now this does
sound more sturdy. Don't agree too quickly, though. It may be a few moments
before you can imagine an objection to this, but there are situations in which
it may not apply. What if an innocent
human being is living in constant, debilitating pain? If the person is of sound mind, but their
life is devoid of any pleasure and they would prefer non-existence to perpetual
agony, would our surely stated premise hold?
I don't think it would. I don't
think it would be wrong to kill an innocent human being in this circumstance.
A system of
ethics where the individual relies on a set of rules may be referred to as
Deontological ethics. It is adherence to
the rule or maxim that is important and determines whether one's action is
right or wrong.
This isn't a
system I am happy to use. Although we
may not often find ourselves in opposition to such rules as 'it is wrong to
kill an innocent human being', it is clear that rules are unlikely ever to
apply absolutely, in all circumstances.
So, having
decided that Deontological ethics is not for us, where might we turn? Well, what about if we consider the effect of
our actions or decisions to be the important thing? What if we judge our actions by the
consequences to which they give rise? If
we think this sounds a little better, we may have some sympathy with a
consequentialist approach to ethics and we may be interested in Utilitarianism.
Utilitarianism
has many forms, but put in its classical form it judges actions as right or
wrong by reference to the pleasure / pain or happiness / misery that they
create. There are variations of Utilitarianism, just as there are versions of
Deontological ethics, but the fundamental or classical form of utilitarianism
is as stated above. The first thing a
Utilitarian approach does is to cut us free from the shackles of strict rules,
which can never be universally applied in our grey, rather than black and white
world and lives.
By
considering what may be the outcome of various actions, weighing up which
action will do the most good or cause the least pain/misery, we allow ourselves
to me much more flexible in our judgements.
Nothing is wrong by rule, but anything may be wrong by consequence.
Various
thought experiments have been used over the years to test an ethical
system. There are several variations of
the following scenario:
A train is
hurtling down a track, completely out of control and on a collision course with
a group of 5 people, which it will reach in very short time. As an observer of the incident some distance
away, there is only 1 thing you can do to change the course of events, since
you are not close enough to contact the people.
There is a switch near the train line that you could throw, which would
have the effect of changing the course of the train to a side track. On the side track 1 person is walking along,
oblivious to events taking place. What
should you do?
Observing
any deontology that requires you not to kill a human being would mean that you
are powerless to change events and 5 people will die. However, a utilitarian ethic would allow you
to throw the switch, which would prevent the loss of 5 lives at the expense of
1.
You may not
be happy about either of these outcomes and may feel that either result will be
tragic. You should. However, I think it is possible to make a
strong argument to suggest that a utilitarian approach of some kind suggests
you should strongly consider throwing the switch.
A
utilitarian would agree that all persons have a value. Therefore the death of 1
million people is not just quantatively different from the death of 1 person,
but also qualitatively different, by virtue of the quantity of people, each of
whom has a value. This shouldn't be
controversial. Our newspapers report air
crash disasters, natural disasters, etc. on the front page. When somebody dies crossing the road, this is
tragic, but it is not generally found on the front of our national
newspapers. Therefore, without taking
lightly the value of any individual's life, we might agree that 1,000,000
people dying is a worse result (involving more pain / misery by accumulation)
than the sad death of 1 person. This is
an objective view, one we may take if we imagine ourselves observing the world
as a disconnected 3rd party. In life,
obviously, we can only see through our own eyes and our subjective preferences
for family members, friends, partners, etc., obviously mean that we place a
premium value on certain people, but we can agree that objectively one person
has a value equal to that of another.
So, if we
agree that the death of 1,000,000 people is a worse consequence than the death
of 1, we should agree that the death of 5 is worse than the death of 1, albeit
by a smaller margin. 5 people suffering
pain/misery/death is a worse outcome than 1 suffering the same. As a utilitarian is interested in
consequences of actions, the action that increases the overall happiness/pleasure
and the least pain/misery, we can see that they might decide to throw the
switch.
The argument
could be stated even more strongly.
Since a utilitarian framework is interested in consequences, little
distinction may be made between act and omission. Since it is a choice to do nothing, rather
than throw the switch, and this choice brings about more pain/misery - the
worst outcome - then a utilitarian may charge somebody who fails to act as
being responsible for the greater tragedy.
You may
think that you would be incapable of throwing the switch, since you would then
be positively doing something that brings about the death of a person. Maybe you wouldn't be able to do it and maybe
neither would I, but that does not mean that utilitarianism is wrong or
bad. Maybe it just means that we
couldn't do the right thing. Maybe we
wouldn't have what it takes. Maybe this
is because the sanctity of human life and the wrongness of killing have always
been taught to us as an absolute rule.
But we have seen that the difference between act and omission in this
scenario is the difference between a tragedy and a bigger tragedy.
Let’s modify
the scenario. What if the train is full
of 1,000 people, headed for another train coming in the other direction, which
also holds 1,000 people. Unless we throw
the switch to divert it to a side track, where it will kill a lone person
strolling obliviously, 2000 people will die.
Given a choice of 2000 lives and 1, do you find the decision comes any
easier? Extrapolate it however you want,
make the numbers as big as you want.
Even if you have to imagine that millions die at the expense of 1 before
you would choose to positively act to kill 1 person, you are acknowledging that
more people dying is a worse outcome than fewer; each life has equal value and
therefore the act that is 'right' according to the consequences it creates, is
the act to positively kill somebody.
I have been
at pains to describe how and why the utilitarian might decide to kill someone,
since it brings about the best consequences.
The consequences in this scenario are limited to 2 outcomes and both are
bad. The scenario isn't practical and
isn't likely to be something one ever faces in life, but it is a dilemma that
has been used as a thought experiment in some form or other for years.
You may
think it a criticism of a utilitarian system of ethics that such a thing as
killing is ever allowed. The example we've seen is extreme and both outcomes
are bad, needless to say if an option existed to save all, this is what the
utilitarian would choose. However, just
because something may seem intuitively wrong or traditionally wrong, our
inquiry shouldn't stop there. Ethics is
something to think about and something to which we should apply reason. Judging by your gut may not be the best
thing. Maybe your intuition will
normally serve you well and generally result in the best outcome. In more everyday matters I expect it will,
but never let it go unchecked- serious things deserve serious consideration.
