The Harvard lecturer Michael Sandel gave thoughtful and amusing anecdotes to discuss the moral issue of ethics. The bottom line of his examples were, is it ethically acceptable to sacrifice a life voluntarily through the action of pre-mediated murder (which is unlawful and universally accepted as immoral), if it meant saving more than 1 life? Is that one act of wrong now become a right? Have we turned the tables on morality if the end justifies the means? In fact there is no right or wrong answer to this question, any more than “which came first, the chicken or the egg.” It is not a mathematical equation that can be solved or a scientific theory that can be proven. It is about a personal emotional response to a dilemma, and we are all wired to react differently to matters pertaining to the heart or even head. It is a moral choice, and people stand differently on ethics. For example should we feel sorry for a serial killer as he faces the death sentence or not? If we take religion/ theology into hand then it is safe to assume that all religions universally do not condone murder. In fact religiously we cannot even take our own life, as God has given us life and only he has the power to take away our life. Murder and suicide or even euthanasia is a sin. Some religions do not even allow abortions even under the circumstance of rape cases or if the foetus will be born with severe disabilities. But if life and death is in the hands of God, why do we perform surgery? Some may argue a surgeon may perform surgery but the outcome is in God’s hand and not the doctors. Murder is murder and there is no middle ground. And yet legally we have separated murders into first and second degrees and manslaughter, and given provisions for temporary insanity that excuses a person for their actions. When do we take the moral high ground, and who has the right to judge us? If two twins were conjoined and both shared a heart and both would die but one would live through separation, is that separation acceptable, and how would you decide which twin lives? If a mother giving birth has complications and only 1 can be saved where is the answer and who has the right to choose. The baby has no voice, but his life is on the line? The baby has not had a chance of life the mother has already lived a full life for 30 Years and yet the mother’s death will have greater mourning as no one knows the unborn, unnamed child? A difficult choice indeed, where we are caught between a rock and a hard place. I personally feel whenever we can we should leave the decision to God or fate. For example in the given lifeboat story, how did the sailors know that they would not have been saved by a passing ship the same day they killed the boy. They did not, so they decided their own fate, instead of leaving the choice to fate. In a burning building there are 3 people, a man, a woman and a child and there is time only to save 1? The scenarios are endless and the possibilities are infinite. Sometimes to coin a phrase we have to be cruel to be kind. Certainly this debate can go on and on. When the decision is made the lecture explained we look at consequentalism (locates morality in the consequences of the act) versus categorical (locates morality in certain duties and rights). However the reality is a little simpler. Any decision you make that you are not haunted with is the right one, as you have to spend a lifetime with that choice, and face the man in the mirror before you face your detractors. A president may send his troops to war knowing there will be fatal causalities but he makes this decision for the good of national security as he sees the bigger picture. If you can make a decision to take a life, and sleep soundly at night, and you have peace of mind, then my friend you made the right decision.
