# [Ethics] - Which life to save?



## Minh (Feb 20, 2021)

Suppose there are two persons whose lives are at stake. If you are facing a ethical dilemma where you can only save either one of them, how would you response? What is the biblical approach to this? I think it's also related to trolley dilemma.


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2021)

Minh said:


> Suppose there are two persons whose lives are at stake. If you are facing a ethical dilemma where you can only save either one of them, how would you response? What is the biblical approach to this? I think it's also related to trolley dilemma.


Why is it an ethical dilemma? I’m not yet convinced I should save either.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2021)

Kill them both!

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2021)

@Minh I need more info. Which is more 'Woke'?


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2021)

Stopping the trolley would cause the trolley company to lose profits. Thus...full steam ahead!


----------



## Edward (Feb 20, 2021)

Minh said:


> I think it's also related to trolley dilemma.


That was a 'one vs many' issue. This is one on one. So I would think it is closer to the parachute joke.


----------



## De Jager (Feb 20, 2021)

You do whatever is most urgent at each moment in the judgment that God has given you. Let Him be the one to decide who should die and when.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 20, 2021)

The one with the more defiled garments. Jude 1:23....


----------



## Jack K (Feb 20, 2021)

There are real-life situations like this that do come up, such as organ-donor recipients. Our hearts being what they are, Scripture mostly gives us guidance on what NOT to do. Don't favor the rich and influential just because they are "great" in the world's eyes. Don't favor the one who can pay you back. Don't give in to favoritism or tribalism. The most just procedures for deciding such things take care to avoid such temptations.

Reactions: Like 3


----------



## Andrew35 (Feb 20, 2021)

The problem I've always found with this scenario is that for the circumstances to have full, ethical weight, we must have a kind of certain knowledge -- the outcome -- that we do not and can't possibly possess, it being only known to God.

My answer in these situations has always been to do nothing. There are too many unknowns in the situation for you to act in a manner that would free yourself from guilt or culpability. So not acting is preferable, and should often probably be the default, in such tricky ethical dilemmas. Leave it in God's hands.

Mind you, this doesn't scale to state. I think we essentially give states the authority and permission to do whatever they can to save as many lives as possible. To think only in terms of numbers. We as individuals generally can't and shouldn't


----------



## VictorBravo (Feb 20, 2021)

Andrew35 said:


> My answer in these situations has always been to do nothing.


The ethical dilemma exercises are designed to promote just that, I think.

I remember being involved in a lifeboat exercise discussion in a law continuing education seminar. It had all sorts of difficult rules. The example was that there was one too many in the boat, who goes over?

I said, "I do, because I can swim well and keep the boat steady from the outside. I used to swim long distances in cold water."

That response was shot down because I violated the non-suicide rule. I then quit playing, thinking that in real life I'd never get on their boat in the first place. They could all fend for themselves.

Reactions: Like 4 | Funny 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2021)

With all of our responses the way they are, I doubt Minh would be too keen on saving any of us.

Reactions: Funny 2


----------



## Minh (Feb 20, 2021)




----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2021)

Being serious about the Trolley Problem: Some trolley scenarios give us a choice of actively killing 1 person versus allowing (passively) 4 or 5 to die. In these particular scenarios we cannot actively kill. Who knows, the trolley might break down and not kill the 4. Plus, it is the trolley killing them and not you. That is an important distinction.

Reactions: Like 2 | Funny 1


----------



## Minh (Feb 20, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> Plus, it is the trolley killing them and not you.


Still, you are control its direction.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2021)

Minh said:


> Still, you are control its direction.


If the trolley is preset to one direction and you cannot stop it, you are not really in control. Thus victims are killed passively by the trolley and not actively/intentionally by your actions. You are not to become an active agent of doing evil.

Reactions: Like 1


----------



## ZackF (Feb 20, 2021)

Pergamum said:


> If the trolley is preset to one direction and you cannot stop it, you are not really in control. Thus victims are killed passively by the trolley and not actively/intentionally by your actions. You are not to become an active agent of doing evil.


Double effect.


----------



## Pergamum (Feb 20, 2021)

ZackF said:


> Double effect.


Double-effect applies when you do not intend an evil action. But in the scenario, if you actively divert the trolley, you are almost always mentally choosing who dies. For that reason, in this and subsequent trolley scenarios, we cannot divert the trolley without moral guilt or, in later scenarios, throw the fat man off the bridge to stop the train.

The most basic trolley problem gives us the dilemma of KILLING 1 or LETTING DIE 5. Phrased as such, the principle of double-effect does not apply. 

It helps to apply all of these scenarios to triage in a medical setting. The first principle of the Hippocratic Oarth is, "First, do no harm." Because of this we cannot kill 1 large person to provide blood and organs to 5 organ recipients, for example.


----------

