Sentry Page Protection
Please Wait...
Ethical Scenario 1
You are standing at a railway junction and you notice an oncoming train is approaching rapidly and is on course to hit a family of five who are crossing the same track. To your right, you notice a lever which can be used to divert the train to the parallel track, where you can see one individual standing on that track. You are aware that whichever track the train choses to follow, the individual(s) present will not have sufficient time to move out of the way, nor will the train have sufficient time to stop.
Explain what actions you would take in this scenario.
You are standing at a railway junction and you notice an oncoming train is approaching rapidly and is on course to hit a family of five who are crossing the same track. To your right, you notice a lever which can be used to divert the train to the parallel track, where you can see one individual standing on that track. You are aware that whichever track the train choses to follow, the individual(s) present will not have sufficient time to move out of the way, nor will the train have sufficient time to stop.
Explain what actions you would take in this scenario.
Average Candidate Response
- I would divert the train as killing one person is better than killing five people.
- I would not divert the train, as by doing so, I would be directly involved in the death of one individual.
Excellent Candidate Response
This dilemma can be viewed from a utilitarian and deontological perspective. On one hand, from a utilitarian perspective, by diverting the train I would be saving five lives at the cost of one life, and thus create the maximum benefit for the majority of the people involved. In addition to saving five valuable lives, there is also likely to be a long term emotional and economic benefit from potentially having four additional loved family members and valuable members of the workforce.
On the other hand, from a deontological perspective, the action itself of diverting the train would lead to the likely death of one individual, which I would be directly responsible for.
Other factors may also need to be considered for examples the ages and backgrounds of the individuals involved. From a ‘cynical perspective’, the family of five may be ‘convicted criminals and murderers’ and hence keeping them alive will lead to more theft and death in the long run.
Finally, it could be argued that this scenario creates a false dichotomy, and that it should not be considered that you can either save one life or save five lives, and the most valuable action would be to search for ways in which to save all six lives.
This dilemma can be viewed from a utilitarian and deontological perspective. On one hand, from a utilitarian perspective, by diverting the train I would be saving five lives at the cost of one life, and thus create the maximum benefit for the majority of the people involved. In addition to saving five valuable lives, there is also likely to be a long term emotional and economic benefit from potentially having four additional loved family members and valuable members of the workforce.
On the other hand, from a deontological perspective, the action itself of diverting the train would lead to the likely death of one individual, which I would be directly responsible for.
Other factors may also need to be considered for examples the ages and backgrounds of the individuals involved. From a ‘cynical perspective’, the family of five may be ‘convicted criminals and murderers’ and hence keeping them alive will lead to more theft and death in the long run.
Finally, it could be argued that this scenario creates a false dichotomy, and that it should not be considered that you can either save one life or save five lives, and the most valuable action would be to search for ways in which to save all six lives.