Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 1


Sacrificing one life in order to save the lives of many may somehow look like “best” option that the
trolley problem or this dilemma has. But, killing one life with the possible means mentioned is still an
immoral way to solve the problem. I believe that there is no definitive or absolute solution for the trolley
problem. As a rational being, there may be five lives that can be saved for one death, i would still
consider that every life of a human is important whether it’s just one or a few. One life is as just as
important as those of five lives. The two means or ways showed in the video were merely based on the
accepted reasoning depicted in this society. The first one justified that even if it would harm a person, it
would still save many lives and it will be done in a positive-looking way. The second one reasoned out
that even it would intentionally harm one person, at least, it still resulted to saving more lives which
depicted as a positive outcome. Nonetheless, when it comes to choosing decisions, we must not just
focus on the means or outcome itself, but we should also contemplate about its subsequent long term
effects. Many people who are wise on on this might say that this problem left them with “no choice”,
but we should remember that “no choice” is still a choice. And the choice of this wise man should never
prevail over the choice of a man who would not just see everything as black and white, rather,
contemplates about how to deal with the grey part; hence a morally upright man. This dilemma would
only pave way to more contemplation about the relationship of human life in the legal sense and in the
moral sense.
2. In the video, the means were the two possible ways, not necessarily ethical, to solve the dilemma. It’s
either switching the direction of the train or pushing a big man to stop the train. These two means were
both toward the outcome of saving more lives in the consequence of sacrificing one. This outcome
might seem positive, good or the best one, but it does not mean that the mean or way through it was
done ethically. I’ll never adhere that whatever end or outcome, as long as it is good or right, it will justify
the means. Something that resulted positive should never be presumed as a product of ethical means.
Just as when someone scored 100 in an exam, but it was only because he cheated.
3. The problem showed two possible ways in order to save the lives of the 5 people, it could either be
switching the direction of the rail towards one worker, or pushing a big man over the bridge to stop the
train. People may say that switching the direction is the best way because it entails a more positive-
looking way in order to save the lives of many than the option of pushing a big man. This may be
justified by the concept of consequentialism where a morally right act is one that will produce a good
outcome, or consequence. The first option adheres to the concept of “the means justify the end”. It
depicts that even when the outcome had On the other hand, the second option is indeed immoral even
if it would save many lives. The good effect has to be produced by the action taken, not by the bad
effect. And here we reach the reason why pulling the switch is preferable to pushing the man onto the
tracks. By pulling the lever, we are taking an action that indirectly results in the death of the man on the
track. In the second example, we are intentionally pushing the man to his death. And it may be depicted
that the “end or outcome of it justified its unethical mean”. Although five people's lives will still be
saved, an evil act never justifies a greater good.