In the instance presented. I believe there is no right thing to make but I am morally compelled to move upon the state of affairs that confronts me. I choose to utilize my strength to throw person overboard to salvage four lives. including my ain. In asseverating that there is no right thing to make. it is because in taking either of the options presented. human life is sacrificed. It is a authoritative instance of “damned if I do. curse if I don’t” .
Whatever pick I make. I will stop up making the incorrect thing. By taking to utilize my strength to throw person overboard and kill him. I am go againsting his right to life.
If I do nil. I would be responsible for the deceases of five people. Although done without purpose. throwing that one individual overboard would be the lone solution. all things considered. for continuing the greater good. In so making. I am reprobating myself to guilt and remorse as determinations that terminate lives are the most intolerable 1s.
From a purely useful point of position. I would be taking the option that would account for “greater felicity for the greatest figure of people. ” felicity qualified in this instance as endurance ( Greenspan 119 ) .
Clearly. my pick is the lesser of two immoralities. In this instance. although there is a moral quandary presented. such a quandary could be resolved because one duty overrides the other in footings of the figure of lives that could be saved. This is non similar to the phenomenon in Sophie’s Choice wherein Sophie is presented with two symmetrical duties.
In her instance. she had to take between her two girls or reprobate both to decease.
In my instance. I am non compelled with emotional fond regards to any of those present in the lifeboat that would do my struggle incapable of deliberation. These people are aliens to me and so. the weight of the duty can be measured in footings of how many lives I could salvage which in the greater strategy of things. intent to the more moral determination. Clearly. this determination would be criticized by many. Advocates of the philosophy of the dual consequence would see my determination as morally incorrect and indefensible.
While the dual consequence logical thinking may acquit those who take action that has negative side-effects. when that action involves something intentionally intended in order to transport out a solution ( in my instance. utilizing my power to throw person overboard ) . it becomes incorrect. Even if the cause ( in order to salvage five people ) is good. the fact that I did something harmful to convey about the cause would render the full determination immoral ( McConnell 412 ) . Utilitarian oppositions would besides reject my impression of taking the lesser of two immoralities.
Extremist moralists would state that human lives are incommensurate. and giving one in stead of a greater figure does non do it moral ( Hill 215 ) . Others would impeach me of being an ethical egotist for taking personal endurance above all else.