According to an article in Science Daily, a research team at the University of Michigan recently presented a group of test subjects with a very interesting moral dilemma. The subjects were placed in a 3-D virtual setting where there was a switch and two sets of railroad tracks. Along one set of tracks, there were five people hiking. On the other set of tracks, there was just one person hiking.
Is Killing For The Greater Good OK?
In this imaginary setting, a boxcar approached from the distance headed toward the five hikers who had no means of escape. The research subjects had the option of pulling a switch that would reroute the boxcar toward the path of the single hiker, who also had no means of escape. What would you do in this setting? Would you choose to kill the one person in order to save the five?
Interestingly enough, in this setting, 90.5 percent of the subjects decided to pull the switch to divert the boxcar. Most people believe that it is morally wrong to kill someone, but in this case, most of the test subjects thought it was fine to kill someone as long as that action would save others.
In this situation, we assume that the research subjects didn't know any of the hikers. One has to wonder if the response would be different if the test subjects knew or loved the individual hiker but didn't know any of the other five hikers. Of course, there are lots of combinations to consider, as well.
Not too many people would argue that a person has a right to try to save other people if no expenditure of other human life is involved. The question to ask is: "Under what circumstances does a human being have the right to take the life of another human being?" Is killing someone automatically acceptable if one deems it necessary to save some greater number of lives? Or should the guiding principle be to do no harm?
Governments And Doctors Choose To Take Lives Every Day
Even though many doctors have taken an oath to do no harm, the truth is that doctors choose to take human lives every day. It's no secret that many vaccines that patients believe are there to protect them from diseases actually kill or injure the very people they are intended to protect. Killing, you see, is "ok" sometimes when the government (as in the case of mandated vaccines, for example) or doctors decide that it's for the greater good.
Is It Ever Really OK To Kill Someone?
When it comes to personal well-being, it's up to the individual to protect himself. The government isn't going look out for the rights of an individual. The government will always look to protect society as a whole. And, your doctor, too, will probably decide that there are certain times where death is sometimes an acceptable outcome due to his prescribed treatment. Likewise, according to the results of the experiment conducted at the University of Michigan described above, most people seem to think that killing others is justified sometimes. But is it ever really acceptable for another human being to make the God-like decision to take the life of another?
