Firstly, before you watch the video, I have to ask you a question. I'm asking you this question for a simple and obvious reason... because most of you are like this
.Ever heard the saying: "Choosing the lesser of two evils"? well, you're in luck. When it comes to the issue of Global Warming, don't worry... I like to think I'm exactly like you. Now, you have to question; Firstly, what the hell am I talking about? Secondly, how the hell could you put everyone into one category on such a controversial issue?
Simple answer, I'm talking about utilitarianism and global warming. Secondly, because I can, and you'll find out why i've put you all into one category.
The question(s):
You're sitting in class, your teacher is teaching a lesson when all of a sudden a crazy clown breaks into the room with a machine gun. He holds the class hostage and wants to have some fun. He points to you and says, "here, take this gun and kill one of your class mates. If you do not kill one of your class mates, just one, I will kill the entire class." Except, this clown is magical. You cannot turn the gun on him, and you can't turn it on yourself. What do you do?
Second question, to enforce the point:
You are walking down the street. There is a streetcar on the road heading up to a construction area, for some reason or another, the track-switch doesn't trigger, and the street car is going to head straight off the rails. The street car is full of people, so the accident will be devastating. You just so happen to be beside the malfunctioning track switch. If you decide to use the device, you can switch the track into one of two lanes. One lane is blocked with a team of construction workers, the other, a sole construction worker working, obliviously, on the rails. They do not notice the out-of-control streetcar approaching. What do you do?
Think about these questions for a while before you continue reading because these are good questions to ask to grab an idea about a person's ethical response. No answer is a wrong answer... there is no right or wrong to this question, as it is a question of ethics, and ethics is a set of principles that varies from person to person. So think about it before scrolling down below... and see if I accurately predicted the universal, or "common" answer. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong, I've seen these questions asked a dozen times and most of the time the professor predicts them correctly. I'm only following suit.
What would I do?
For the first question, I predict most of you would kill that one person, because one person dying is better than everyone in the class dying, right? Or you would kill the teacher because he's lived the longest. Well, I would disagree, and I would tell the clown to kill everyone. I do not want to have to justify why I chose this *one* person to die. Because I didn't like them? Because that was the "lesser of two evils"? I don't see it that way. Suffering is unmeasurable, the same goes for life. Life is life. You cannot accurately justify why one life is greater than another. An animal kills to survive, but that does not mean the life of it's prey is worth more than the animal that kills it. The same is for suffering. Your mother may have died, and I may have lost my fire truck, but if we both are very pained, the person who lost their mother cannot say to me "I'm suffering more than you," because they cannot accurately predict and feel what I'm feeling.
When two people lose someone close to them, they both can understand how the other feels, but they cannot say to each other "I know how you feel," because they don't. This is what makes us unique, the way we identify things to us. The points of understanding may be the same, but the feeling is always different. Telling someone that what they experience is wrong is a fallacy and incorrect, thus, I will not choose to kill another human being, in spite of the whole class facing death because of my decision.
That must mean that in question two I would choose to do nothing, that's right - nothing. Same method applies. Why should I choose who lives or who dies? Does that mean that I killed the people in the streetcar because I chose not to save them? But if I did move the tracks, I would be choosing to kill someone else. What's different about this question is that this is what we call a Catch 22 (good book), it means that there is no win to this situation. No matter what you are choosing to allow someone to die. The other question is different because the clown is choosing to kill the class, not you. Your action is his reaction to your decision, but you are not the decider in that situation. This time, you are. Still, I would rather fate take control than myself being the instigator of another persons' death. I am still instigating because I see the accident about to happen, but not doing anything, but I will not do anything about it because I feel that even if I wasn't there, the accident would have happened in *this* way.
What you would choose: I believe the majority of you would have chosen to move the tracks to the lone construction worker.
So, what about this argument on Global Warming and putting everyone in the same category? Well, here it is:
I asked you the above questions for a reason... because it perfectly applies here. The lesser of two evils would be to do SOMETHING about it... which is why I am just like you in this argument and I won't change stances on it.
No comments:
Post a Comment