MSLD 634_February 2019_2477

Consequentialism claims that humans are morally obligated to act in ways that produce the best consequences; in consequentialism, the interests of others’ is the primary focus of moral decisions (LaFollette, 2007, p.23). While rules do matter to the consequentialist, the consequentialist is more concerned with the overall outcome (LaFollette, 2007, p.24). In contrast deontologists claim that our moral obligations should drive us, no matter the consequences (LaFollette, 2007, p.24). Deontologists believe that rules play a fundamental role in morality, while consequentialists do not (LaFollette, 2007, p.23). In order to understand both theories, I summed them up in a sentence: consequentialists believe in morality with exceptions; deontologists believe in morality without exceptions.  Of course, there is more to each theory than my sentence describes, but the simplified definition helps me get the gist of each theory. At first read, I thought I might find my beliefs housed in co...

  A train is hurtling down the track where five children are standing. You are the switchperson. By throwing the switch, you can put the train on a side track where one child is standing. Will you throw the switch? As I read through each ethical dilemma, I was desperately torn. Since I don’t have to make this decision in real-time, I can think rationally about my decision. However, if I exam these scenarios based on the emotions that would potentially drive my decisions, I don’t know what I would do. For the sake, of discussion, I’ll give my best answers, in this moment. If I had to sacrifice one child to save four children, I think I would throw the switch. In sacrificing the one child, I am not saying this his life has less value, I thought of it in terms of fewer losses . No matter what, everyone would experience grief and guilt; I would feel guilty for killing a child that I could have saved; the survivors and their loved ones may feel guilty, for it could have been them ...