In this multi-part series focused on the JUSTICE framework, we delve into an intriguing ethical dilemma that has puzzled philosophers and ethicists alike. Imagine you are standing beside some tram tracks. In the distance, you spot a runaway trolley speeding down the tracks towards five workers who cannot hear it coming.
Now, as this disaster looms, you notice a lever connected to the tracks, which you realize that if you pull the lever, the tram will be turned to a second set of tracks away from the five unsuspecting workers on the track.
However, down this side track there is still one worker, just as oblivious as his colleagues.
So, would you pull the lever, leading to one death but saving five? Or would you do nothing and kill the five?
Instinctually, the choice seems clear—saving five lives and killing one appears morally more justifiable, a utilitarian calculation where the greater good is served. However, when delving into the other side of the paradigm, issues become more apparent on the surface level. Is it truly ethical to actively choose to end a life, even if it means saving more? Why do you have the right to decide who lives, who die? This, weighing on the consequences of one's actions against the outcome, is an appeal to moral decision-making.
Moral decision-making, as Ethics Unwrapped McCombs School of Business defines, is the ability to produce a reasonable and defensible answer to an ethical question. It evaluates actions and decisions based on principles and values. It is a complex process that entails determining what is right or wrong, just or unjust, in various situations, especially those that present moral dilemmas or conflicting values. For example, murder, theft, rape, lying, and breaking promises are morally wrong things to do, where most people agrees upon.
Though, the answers to the whats and whys, are not always universally agreed upon—-there’s not a definite answer. People with diverse backgrounds, situated in different scenarios, have divergent philosophies when viewing things. Still, at its core value, moral decision-making is about identifying moral issues, weighing on different options, and making decisions that align with one's ethical beliefs. Oftentimes, this requires a balance of rational deliberation and intuitive judgment, considering both ethical principles and the emotional impact of decisions. Though, special case scenarios do apply.
Already, several ethical and psychological theories dating to a few centuries ago have already provided a foundation for understanding moral decision-making. They divided the branches of moral thinking into two main branches: utilitarianism & deontology. Utilitarianism advocates for actions that maximize overall happiness and minimize suffering, emphasizing the consequences of actions. It exemplifies the decision of killing the one to save five in the trolly problem. Deontology, on the other hand, proposed by Immanuel Kant, a German philosopher and one of the central Enlightenment thinkers, emphasizes duty and adherence to moral rules and principles, focusing on the inherent morality of actions. Kantianism believes that it is illegal for the pushing of the lever; you shouldn't kill one to save five. This is because the decision to kill another rational being is always immoral in the eyes of Kantian ethicists.
Turning to another aspect, psychological theories also offer valuable insights into moral decision-making. Kohlberg's Stages of Moral Development describe the progression of moral reasoning through different developmental stages, from a pre-conventional level focused on self-interest to a post-conventional level characterized by principled ethical reasoning. The Social Intuitionist Model, proposed by Jonathan Haidt, suggests that moral judgments are primarily driven by intuitive processes, with rationalizations occurring post hoc. This model highlights the role of emotions and social influences in shaping moral judgments. The Dual-process Theory, developed by Joshua Greene, posits that moral decision-making involves both automatic, intuitive processes and controlled, rational deliberation, reflecting the interplay between emotional and cognitive factors.
However, it is important to note that cognitive processes in moral decision-making involve both rational deliberation and intuitive processes. Rational deliberation entails logical reasoning and deliberative thinking, where individuals carefully consider the consequences and ethical implications of their actions. Examples of moral dilemmas requiring rational analysis include deciding whether to tell a painful truth or lie to protect someone's feelings, or choosing between saving one person or many in life-threatening situations. Intuitive processes, on the other hand, rely on gut feelings and immediate emotional responses to moral issues. Emotions play a significant role in moral decision-making, influencing judgments and actions even when individuals are not consciously aware of their impact. For instance, feelings of empathy might drive someone to help a stranger in need, while feelings of disgust could lead to moral condemnation of certain behaviors.
To summon up, what’s the right thing to do? Sacrifice the one to save five? Do nothing and let everything just happen? This question has puzzled philosophers for decades. Still, we don’t have a definite answer.
Given the complex interplay between rational and intuitive processes in contemporary society, we are surrounded by dilemmas that require a profound amount of thinking, debating, and nuanced decision-making. Thus, this underscores the importance of what a good “judgment” is. We must develop the ability to discern not only the most beneficial outcomes but also the most ethically sound paths. Good judgment involves a delicate balance of empathy, critical thinking, and ethical reasoning.
Comments