I think that Lindsey’s challenge is directed toward a very valid point.I believe that in order to fully accept or reject the argument of Jon Stuart Mill, one must have a firm grasp of their view on equality amongst human beings.Here lies the greatest obstacle we face in making a decision for the “trolley example.” In the multiple instances that I have discussed this situation, the first reaction is to ask who the individuals on the trolley are.Do they have families?Are they criminals?Are they a member of my family?
I am not clear on Mill’s view of equality, whether it only refers to equal liberty and rights or equality in value of human beings.I myself am referring to equality in the sense of skills and abilities amongst human beings.I believe that certain individuals are more important to society and are able to contribute on a greater level than others.While I know that many might disagree with me, this belief that I hold is important to my view for the trolley example.While I would pull the lever to kill the one person if I had absolutely no knowledge of who the individuals were, I certainly would have a different thought process if I was aware of who the victims were.If the single individual was a world class researcher from St. Jude’s and the five were factory workers with loving families, I believe the correct action would be to save the researcher because I believe he is more valuable to humanity.While this may stir outcry, I still believe that certain individuals are “worth” more, per say, so that order amongst humanity and progress may be maintained.
We generally praise examples of this as a society.In Air Force One, no one frets when a man takes a bullet for the president.While a situation such as that has not occurred to the public’s direct knowledge, there are still individuals who are supposed to protect the president at the cost of their own life, if necessary.
We have spoken a great deal of emotional losses and the effects they would have upon a trolley decision, and I believe that emotions should be completely taken out of the equation.Emotions are irrational, and founded in connections that we as humans have created.One might argue that we should protect one who has loved ones back at home, but really I believe we should be more rational and examine larger picture.Perhaps I am being cynical, but I truly see emotions as impeding our ability to make rational and impartial decisions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The question of what a human is worth, and if they even have different values is one of my favorite questions. It gets to the base of what one believes politically and can tell you a lot about that person. I happen to agree with you Ben, in the fact that different humans have different values. Where I think people tend to disagree on the subject is what differing values entails.
ReplyDeleteIt is easy enough to say that most would agree that a homeless drug addict is worth less to a society than say a researcher or a prominent, honest politician. Where opinions differ is in how a society is supposed to deal with these differences. In a strictly Utilitarian society, the worst of society (repeat drug dealers, repeat sexual predators) would be used in a productive manner such as human research. This would obviously violate their human rights, but it would also undoubtedly help a great number of people. I'm not sure if I'm for that, but I have to say that it's a very attractive proposition.
Maybe an easier version of this scenario to subscribe to would be mandatory organ donation upon death. I certainly agree with this proposition and would love to hear what others think of it.
Ok I do not agree that one can put worth on human life. I especially do not agree when you said that you would let five factory workers die who have loving families. I mean is one's profession all they are worth? Is quality of life and what we do for others on a daily basis less important than what we do form 9:00 to 5:00. What if that doctor is a complete jerk who has screwed many people over to get where he is? Would you not even consider that? Or what if those workers help out within their communities and make the lives of many others better with their time given when outside of their job. I think you should think deeper when considering human life, and putting a mark of worth on it. I think I see where you are coming from, but it needs more thought.
ReplyDeleteI would have to agree with Greg. One of the biggest problems that arises when we try to place a value on someone else's life is that in doing so, we must project our own values and notions of worth onto that individual inorder to make such a judgement.
ReplyDeleteAlthough I suppose that we could possibly increase the efficency of our society if complete control of those deemed 'worthless' was handed over to some agency to make some use of thier livelihood, where does the line between usefulness and worthlessness get drawn?