Here
we are! Another new class meaning another new learning opportunity! I am really
excited at this point because I am now over half way done with my degree. In
theory, I have now read more articles and written more assignments than I have
left to go. (Of course the reality is that I tend to research a lot more now
than I did in the beginning just because I am extremely familiar with the
methodology now but I tend to skim a lot more now than I did before so maybe it
all evens out.) In this new class, we
are going to be studying ethics. There seem to be as many MBA students in this
class as there are those of us on the leadership track so I am excited to get
that management perspective. From what I have experienced thus far, it seems
that those in managerial roles tend to focus a bit more on quantitative
research so it will be interesting to see how this “touchy-feely stuff” is
incorporated to the discussions.
The
first blog for this class is definitely one of those touchy-feely subjects. As
I stated above, we are studying the role of ethics in the decision-making
process (the title of the class is “Leadership Ethics and Corporate Social
Responsibility”). We were given a scenario with which you are most likely
familiar and asked to think about how we would apply ethical decision-making to
determine the best solution. This is the train dilemma. There are actually
three different scenarios so let’s just go through them one at a time. In each
situation, I am supposed to put myself in the mindset of being a rail switch
operator. Surely these scenarios wouldn’t apply if I worked for the MTA as the
subways never work the way they are supposed to but maybe if I worked for
Amtrak or something…
In
the first scenario, there is a trail hurting down the tracks and I notice that
there are five children on the tracks. I can throw the switch and send the
train to another track where there is one child on the track. What will I do?
Will I throw the switch? To answer this question, I have to do what we need to
do with all ethics-based decisions and weigh the benefits and consequences of
each action (or inaction). This particular case, I would imagine, would have
most of us agreeing that the appropriate action is to pull the switch. It is
better to save five lives than to save one life. I should add that I am taking
these scenarios at face value. Let’s not get wrapped up in the axels with the
details. We are not considering that one of the kids may be a future POTUS or
will cure cancer or anything. I am just assuming that I have no idea who these
kids are, what their status is, or what their potential is. However, due to my
own beliefs (primarily religious), I believe that the most “despicable” human
soul is as precious as the most saintly. I do believe that my religious beliefs
tie into my ethical decision-making but really, I would imagine that we would
all agree – it is far better to save the five lives and sacrifice the one. That
is just a numbers game.
I am
going to skip ahead to the third scenario and just make it the second scenario
here. Let’s take that same situation. There are five kids playing on the track
and the train is hurtling toward them. On the other track is a single child. I
can throw the switch and let the train hit that child, but this time, that is
my child on the track. What would I do? To answer this, I have to let you know
that I really cannot relate to this situation. It is impossible for me to even
properly frame it as I have no children of my own. I can only speculate how I
would feel about my own child. I know that I would love that child more than I
loved myself so the best that I can do is imagine that I was on the track
myself. Yes, I would pull the switch and sacrifice myself because I know that those
five children have equal value to my own self (or my own child) and their
parents love them as I would love my own child. This is still measuring the
value of five lives versus one. The situation is the same as the first. I would
like to think that nothing would change. It may make the aftermath much harder
to deal with but there is no disputing that the value of five lives outweighs
the value of one life.
The
final scenario is perhaps the hardest. This time, a train is hurtling toward
the five children. There is an old man standing near the tracks. I can push him
in front of the train and it will stop. Do I push him? Yes, I realize that this
is an unrealistic scenario. How would that stop a train? Just go with it. (That
statement was targeted at one reader of this blog in particular and I think
that she knows who she is…) One of my friends pointed out that we don’t know
what that man is accomplishing in this world and we don’t know anything about
those kids. Would you sacrifice a philanthropist to save five gang members?
Again, let’s not get wrapped up in the axel and just take this at face value.
They can all be strangers with unlimited potential. The thing is that this isn’t
just a case of five lives versus one life anymore. Previously, the action was
throwing the switch. We were choosing the lesser of two terrible situations. We
were choosing who the train killed, basically. This time, though, our options
are to allow the train to kill five children or to kill someone ourselves. Do
you see the difference? In the first two cases, we are mitigating the damage.
In this case, we are actively killing someone. So let’s have some real talk
here. Obviously it wasn’t with a train but I have encountered a situation
before where I have had to make the decision to actually take a life or not. I
don’t want to go into any more details than that but what I will tell you is
that I deal with the ramifications of that every single day. I did what I had
to do. So, would I push the old man to save five children? I would (quickly)
weigh the benefits and consequences of both action and inaction. However, one
thing that is so important to understand when dealing with ethics – inaction IS
an action. Choosing to not act is in and of itself an action. This situation
may seem different because it pushing a man in front of a train versus pulling
a switch to divert a train. The results are the same, though. I think that is
the thing about ethical decision-making that we must remember. The end results –
the consequences – play into the ethics. That is all morally driven, too. We
have to be so careful with this, though. This train of thought can be used to
justify the most heinous of acts if we let it.
No comments:
Post a Comment