Im sure most of us are familiar with the train dilemma. Heres a slightly altered version:
You are a station master in charge of a split track. As a train approaches the split, it can either turn onto the left track or the right track. There is a big red button on your cabin which allows you to switch the tracks in order to decided which direction the train is going.
One day, as a train was coming down as usual, you suddenly discover a huge problem. There are a group of five children playing on the left rack, the track that the incoming train would have taken. Additional, a lone drunk man whom you recognise to be a wanted criminal has fallen asleep on the right track. The train is coming soon and there is not enough time to warn anyone to get off the tracks. You are the only man in the cabin as it was lunch hour and hence ultimately responsible for the choice that will be made.
Do you:
a) press the button and let the wanted criminal be killed by the train
b) not press the button and let the five children be killed by the train
Think about it for a moment.
Done?
Now, this question is different from the normal train dilemma in that it deliberately shows an extreme difference in the value of the lives of those on the left track and on the right track. Five children versus a wanted criminal. Which such an unfair stacking, perhaps 90% will claim that they will go with option a.
Now the question is, how many people will actually follow through?
You see, this question is also deliberately set such that you have to press the button for the criminal to die. In other words, while option b requires inactivity, option a requires you to actually press that big red, and permit me to say, intimidating button.
People may value the life of the five children over the wanted criminal, but no one actually wants to be responsible for condemning the man to his death. Having to press the button immediately makes you the executioner. So perhaps rationally looking at this, one may say that it is more important to save the five children, but in an actual situation, how many will be able to carry though knowing that its not just about saving, but it is about condemning someone to certain death?
Its a choice between the lesser of two evils. Yet an evil is still an evil, it will be by no means an easy decision to make. It will likely haunt anyone caught in such a situation for the rest of their lives. Not only so, they will be haunted by others. The 10% who would not have chosen to switch the tracks (perhaps they believe that since the train is already going on that set course, it should not be changed, by not changing it would be an accident, by changing it would be murder), some of them might talk about it. They'll say, that was inhumane, sending someone to die. It won't make the man who was forced to make the choice feel any better.
And of course, if the man didn't switch the tracks, perhaps even more condemnation from others will be rife. It seems that neither choice is a good choice.
Now actually, what if we include a third option. I cant really fit it into the story, but what if by some way, the station master can sacrifice himself, and as a result save both the group of children and the wanted criminal? Some may call it foolish, but perhaps you'd realise that it would be the only way which the station master could make a decision and remain with a clear conscience.
Now scrap that entire train story, and lets look at real life. We arent likely to meet with such deadly dilemmas in our lives, but we will meet situations where we have to choose the lesser of two evils. Perhaps the consequences are not as large, but there still are consequences.
Such decisions are hard to make, and they are likely to be more complicated in nature as compared to the train dilemma. One should never try to oversimplify such matters. There may be more than meets the eye, there may be a lack of understanding of the whole picture, or perhaps a valid alternative perspective. Unfortunately, sometimes, when one is forced to make a decision which is the lesser of two evils, they may not receive as much empathy as compared to the station master in the story. After all, sometimes its harder to understand people who struggle with normal occurrences than extreme ones.
Ultimately, whichever decision the station master makes, whether option a, b or perhaps even option c, as long as they do it with the right motives, lets respect their choices and not allow it to haunt them. Sometimes, there simply is no right answer, only different opinions, and each of these might be equally valid in their own ways.
---