Suppose you are nearby a rail and a train is about head for a group of 20 miners working at one end of the rail. They cannot be informed in time before the train hits them but there is a switch for the track to set the train on another course that would hit another group of 5 kids playing on the track. We isolate all other possible ways to salvage the situation and assume that its either to save the miners and let the train over the kids or not to interfere with the events that is about to happen.
kill or let die?
No doubt any moral and responsible person will make an intuitive decision that the train should be set in the course away from the 20 miners to prevent more people from dying. Yet interestingly others can agrue who are we to play god in deciding who to die when? We should try to save lives but not at the expenses of taking others. If we would to justify that killing should be done in order to save more, then we are on a dangerous slippery slope, diverting us from the course of humanity.
Then again we are not really playing the role of god, but rather a task and important decision is entrusted to us by chance. So the question does not lie whether we switch the tracks or not but rather whether we should be held responsible even for choosing not to swtich the track- to let die. After all isnt it true that we are equally responsible for the things we are capable of but did not do as to what we actually did? Suppose i know you are about to consume a cup of poison. Am i as equally responsible for your death when i choose not to tell you that you are trying poison as opposed to encouraging you to consume that cup of poison? Should a person be responsible for not stopping a girl when he was right beside her when she was about to walk across a road? Should we be equally responsible for not switching the track as opposed to switching it?
These questions were asked under the basic and common underlying assumption that to let die is as good as killing. But when the distinction between killing and letting die blurs, more moral conflicts arise from it. If letting someone die is as good as killing, then it becomes increasing to debate against euthanasia. Less obvious but more striking, are we not responsible for the death of children in developing countries when we can simplely contribute the basic amenities and medicine without much cost?
With the distinction between killing and letting die, its already so difficult and unreasonable to make a decision. But with the distinction between killing and letting die blurred, we inherit more dilemma.
Labels: kill or let die
