Kohlberg applies psychology to the decision making process, and the stages that lead to a morally challenging decision. The focus of his work was the reasoning process of his subjects, rather than the conclusions they came to when faced with his hypothetical moral dilemmas. His subjects demonstrated the development of morality over a lifetime, as well as personal, cultural, and conventional morality. The different levels of morality demonstrate the cognitive sequence of applying moral principles. The cognitive process becomes more complex with each level.
Using Kohlberg's method, I assess a different moral dilemma- Is it justified to take one life in order to save a hundred others?
The first level of morality, preconventional morality concerns the simple debate of right and wrong. For example- Taking a life is wrong. Saving 100 lives is a heroic act.
The second level is conventional morality, and demonstrates the cultural and societal constraints that one faced with this moral dilemma might encounter. For example- The family of the person left behind will be extremely upset, and additionally hurt that so many others were saved with the exception of their family member. One will receive much praise and appreciation from those they would manage to save.
The third level is postconventional morality, and focuses on the personal internal aspect of human morality. For example- By protecting so many lives, one would not necessarily be in violation of the human principle of not physically harming or violating other human lives.
What would you do?
Moral Dilemmas
No TrackBacks
TrackBack URL: http://blog.lib.umn.edu/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/182481
Moral Dilemmas are very interesting to think about and situations like these, I don't believe, happen in real life very often. However, working through the scenario in your head is a healthy intellectual exercise. I believe that when faced with the decision to save one life over one hundred lives, I would put myself in the position of the single life to be saved. Would I want to be saved over one hundred others, no. I would want to let one hundred other people live and if I survived, the survivor guilt would eat away at me. I understand that not everyone thinks this way, and that is the dilemma aspect. It is different for everyone.
This has been a long discussed question over many years. Yes, I agree with the others that it may not happen very often, but that does not mean it couldn't. If i had to decide between one or one hundred, I do not know what I would do. I would definitely have to think about the people I would be saving. If the single person were someone terrible, I would easily take the group over them. However, if the group had many evil people in it, and the single person were good, the decision would be much harder. This takes me back to the story of Lot when he flees Sodom. He argues with G-d to save the city if there are a hundred good people, but G-d responds that there are not a hundred good people in the city. So he says what if there were ten good people, and G-d responds again, that there are not. Lot asks what if there were one good person in the city. G-d responds "If there were one good person in the city of Sodom, I would save it, but there is not. So G-d smote the city killing all of its inhabitants. If G-d had trouble making a decision like that, how could we?
I also agree that moral dilemma is a very interesting topic, and also can be very controversial. We like to hope that situations like these do not arise often, but when they do it is very hard to determine what we as an individual would decide. The preconventional morality of right and wrong is, in fact, a very controversial debate. If taking a life is wrong, but saving 100 lives is right, how can we ever come up with a decision of which we would do? In my opinion, I do not believe it is justifiable to take one life in order to save 100 more.
Moral debates like this are indeed difficult. Especially due to the fact that we aren't actually in the situation in which a decision is required. Sitting in front of a computer whilst debating what to do, as compared to actually being in front of the lives you are about to save or kill, is entirely different. I also believe that it depends on how well you know the people. If the one person was my girlfriend, and the 100 were people I have never seen or known, then it would become more difficult. Of course it is a somewhat selfish thing to think of, but unfortunately things like that will affect your decision.
Taking the life of one person in order to save one hundred is a no brainer for me. I would certainly do so in order to save the lives of so many others. One thing to note is that, as in most moral situations, it wouldn't be taking the life of one, as much as letting one life go. I am not choosing to kill him/her as much as I am choosing not to save them. This decision is easy to make because we are detached from the situation.
Moral dilemma is an interesting topic and I like your analysis. I have no idea what I would do with your example. There is clearly no right or wrong answers. I think most of the times it is not a choice to save one person or one hundred lives. The decision people make is intuitive and others cannot judge superficially according to the number of lives are saved. If the person takes extremely high risks to save one hundred people and have to sacrifice more, maybe save one life for sure is a better decision. Perhaps the second level, which is conventional morality, makes more sense to me.