Skip to main content

The Train Dilemma


The train dilemma exercise sucks! Understanding that the dilemma is a test, a moral test to see what people would do in no-win situations. I could channel my best Captain Kirk and say that I don’t believe in no-win scenarios, but I’d fail that this specific test because I need to explain myself in what I would do in these tests.

Test #1

I’m a train switchperson and a train is about to hit five children. I could throw the switch and kill one child or take no action and let the train kill five children. What to do? We know from this test that if I do nothing, one child lives. If I do nothing, five children die. If I take action and throw the switch, one child dies because of me. If I take no action and don’t throw the switch, five children die because of me. Looking at it from this vantagepoint, and because both my action and inaction would cause death, I would choose to save the five children. Philosophers have maintained that the intuitive position is that it is acceptable to flip the switch to divert the train, leading to the death of one instead of five (Nichols & Mallon, 2006, p. 531). However, for me, I would not be able to throw the switch and kill the one child. It would be unimaginable to be responsible for an action that killed even one child over no action that took five children. According to traditional rule-based accounts of morality, an action is wrong if it violates a moral rule (Nichols & Mallon, 2006, p. 531). The action of throwing the switch would violate my moral rule of not killing another human.

Test #2

I’m standing at the train platform with an elderly man. If I push him into the train, it will save all the children on the tracks. Will I push him? Another great situation to understand my moral compass. Listen, I can’t bare to think about any scenario where I find myself having to kill someone, either to save another or not. Once again, I’m being asked to sacrifice one person to save five. But again, my action would cause someone to die. Yet again, my inaction would cause give people to die. In the end, I would not be able to push anyone in front of a train, regardless if it were to save more lives. There must be another way.

Test #3

Using the same scenario from test one, except that the one child on the sidetrack is my child. Would I throw the switch now? Earlier I said I wouldn’t throw the switch to save the five children, and I certainly wouldn’t do it now.

If I were to be in these amazingly awful situations, I would find all other available options to save the five children. I understand what these dilemmas are designed to do, so its less about looking for other ways to save lives and more about understanding how and why I would arrive at the conclusions I did. I consider myself a leader but haven’t served in the military and faced sacrificing people for the greater good of the team. Instead, the sacrifices I’ve made as a leader don’t border on such fantastical outcomes. Such leaders call for sacrifice in the pursuit of moral principles and higher goals, validating such altruism by looking beyond the present moment to frame a future worth striving for (Goodwin, pg. 235). I don’t think I could live with myself if I had to make a decision in which the outcome meant blood was on my hands.

References

Goodwin, D.K. (2018). Leadership: In Turbulent Times. New York, NY: Simon & Schuster.

Nichols, S., & Mallon, R. (2006). Moral dilemmas and moral rules. Cognition, 100(3), 530-542. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2005.07.005

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Dear Marques

  Dear Marques, You’ve continued to gain a lot more knowledge of leadership, the foundational approaches using different aspects from the elements of theories, and a profound appreciation for senior leaders. The question before you today is – what will you do to get back to the mountain top? Your Personal Vision You’ve stated that your personal vision is “to be happy as much as possible” (Thomey, 2021, p. 2). We both know that you were at your best when you were happiest. Whether on the mountain top or not, you brought out the best in yourself when you were happy. You need to find a way to get back to that place so everything else can fall into place. Three Learning Goals In order to accomplish your personal vision, you must establish three learning goals with milestones so that you have a plan and a pathway for getting this done. Your first goal should be to reengage with the Dale Carnegie group for continuing education classes. I know you found this group to have a tra...
Post a Comment
Read more

Consequentialism vs Deontology

  Consequentialism vs Deontology Is it a glass half-empty or a glass half-full? It appears to me that what separates consequentialism and deontology is perspective. LaFollette (2007) writes that consequentialists must explain which consequences we should count, how much weight or consideration we should give those that do count, and how we should use these considerations when deliberating (p. 25). However, deontology is usually regarded as a foil to consequentialism ( Heinzelmann, 2018, p. 5201). What I find as the takeaway from this situation is that consequentialism isn’t necessarily grounded in morality, whereas deontology finds itself in a set of negative rules. As LaFollette points out with consequentialism, we must look at and use several dimensions to understand and consider what are the consequences of a situation. Deontology doesn’t require this additional gate check, but instead relies on our experience learning right and wrong from the negative perspective. Much like a...
Post a Comment
Read more