Do we own ourselves?
There are many questions left unanswered when it comes to the complex topic of ethics. Many philosophers have come up with conclusions, which are conflicting in nature. The approach towards any situation can be broadly classified into two: the utilitarian approach and the libertarian approach.
Utilitarians are the ones that hold the opinion of doing things that provide a greater good for the greater number irrespective of individual opinions. For them, motives are unimportant; only consequence counts. Libertarians hold the opinion of preserving personal ownership irrespective of consequences. The real question here is:
“ Do we own ourselves or are we fragments that can be meddled with to make society better?”
Should the decisions be made for individual gain or for the gain of society?
Bentham
Jeremy Bentham was an exceptionally brilliant person, who graduated from Oxford at the age of 15. He believed that the highest principle of morality is to maximise general welfare or collective happiness i.e., to maximise utility. This was when the utilitarianism took its form. An interesting fact about Bentham is that he was an atheist and was against the opinion of burying the dead. Instead, he argued on keeping stuffed dead relatives as ornaments in the house. When he died, his corpse was stuffed (they were unable to preserve his head and the body is now topped with a wax head) and is still present at the University College , London.
Kant
“Do the right thing because it is right"
Immanuel Kant argued on doing things that are right, irrespective of the consequences. He said that consequences have nothing to do with moral duty and a moral action may cause good or bad consequences. Kant rejected utilitarianism , denied Bentham’s claim and said that it is wrong to use people for the well being of the public. He considered an individual to be the sacred bearer of rights. Humans are rational and autonomous beings which makes them special. In order for a person to be free, they must be given the opportunity to choose the end and not the means. Kant stresses that this is what makes us distinctive and worthy of individual recognition.
From the trolley problem to euthanasia, let us take a look at some of the debated issues that have puzzled people for centuries.
The Trolley problem
“Imagine you’re watching a runaway trolley barreling down the tracks, straight towards five workers. You happen to be standing next to a switch that will divert the trolley onto a second track. Here’s the problem: that track has a worker on it, too — but just one. What do you do? Do you sacrifice one person to save five? “
There are many different versions of this same problem. As the version changes, peoples’ approaches are also found to change. Take a look at this video to know more about it.
About 90% of people chose to sacrifice one person for the greater good. The same people were given another scenario:
“You are a mere spectator standing on a bridge above the track as the brakeless trolley approaches the five people trapped on the track. On the bridge, stands a fat person next to you. If you push him down the bridge, the trolley will come to rest, thus saving the other five. Would you push him down?”
Surprisingly, the same people refused to sacrifice the fat man for saving the five. The drastic shift in mentality was found to be due to direct interference in wrongdoing in the second case.
What is the right thing to do? Think for a moment and read to find out.
If we turn the track, it will result in us, making an informed decision that will kill one person. If we do not turn the track, we are not making a choice, but merely letting things go as they would if we were not in the frame of reference.
What makes us think that sacrificing one person for saving five is the right thing to do? The primary reason is the numerical attribute of one v/s five. The secondary reason is labeling value for lives. Humanity and moral values inculcated in us make it impossible to put value arbitrarily on any human being. What if the five are serial killers and the one is your parent? We are not given the information of who they are. So the actions done by the motive of assigning algebraic value to human life are baseless.
The utilitarian approach urges us to investigate the idea of the “greater good”. Is the greater good one in which the minority has to be sacrificed for the “good” of the majority or the society in which the innocent has to be punished for saving the “great”? Agreeing upon these ideals is not different from saying that the following cases are right: A child being taken for organ trafficking, a hungry mob eating a human being, looting of rich to feed the poor, doing medical experimentation without permission from the individual, murdering humans to save natural resources.
The trolley problem is a metaphor for the crossroads in life where the normal course of incidents can be changed at the expense of others. Meddling with the switch/lever is an unnecessary action that causes an imbalance in life.
The case of Richard Parker
A 17-year-old orphan Richard Parker was the cabin boy of a yacht. The yacht consisted of three other people: Dudley, Stephens, and Brooks belonging to superior ranking. The yacht was about to sink and they lowered the lifeboat. They took with them, the vital navigational instruments along with two can of turnip. Days passed and supplies began to terminate. They fed on a turtle for a few days. Parker had fallen ill as he drank seawater. A few days later, blinded by hunger, they decided to kill him. Parker was dying and had no family, unlike others. Dudley said a prayer and, with Stephens standing by to hold the youth’s legs if he struggled, pushed his penknife into Parker’s jugular vein, killing him. The three were rescued later and they confessed to killing Richard for satisfying their hunger.
Should they be punished? Is killing a dying man to sustain one's life unethical? This is no different than the above dilemma, except, in this case, it is our life that is at stake. What would you have done if you were on the lifeboat? Would the situation be more acceptable if they requested Parker to kill himself? The most popular opinion regarding this case is that “we own ourselves and no one has the right to kill us”. This takes us to the dilemma lying around euthanasia.
Euthanasia
Euthanasia or mercy killing is illegal in many parts of the world. This poses the same question of deciding another persons’ death. Euthanasia relieves the patient from suffering by bringing about a gentle and easy death, especially in the case of an incurable and painful disease. Many philosophers argue that there lies a difference between “living” and “being alive” and it is best for nature to take its course. If we accept euthanasia, it would mean a silent nod to the murder of “racially impure” in the future. Once human life is regarded as disposable, then civilized moral values are in great danger. Even though it is an easy way, once implemented non voluntarily by the patient, it may lead to the shattering of the foundations of social ethics on which our society is built.
You can check out this video if you are further interested in the topic of ethics and morality.
It is not easy to find a perfect solution for these problems. There is no perfect solution. There are only opinions and they may differ from person to person and time to time. The quest to find the right decision will continue as long as humanity exists. At the end of the day, Right may not be in the same direction; it is different for different people. In the above article, I have made an attempt to showcase my perspective on these dilemmas. We own ourselves and no one can claim our lives.
Read More!
We are now on LinkedIn! Do follow us there!
Follow us on Medium for more for International events, news, MUN tips and tricks, and detailed analysis. Get in touch with us on Social media to stay in the loop -
Facebook| Instagram|Telegram Channel |YouTube|Twitter|LinkedIn.
We also invite guest writers to publish their material via this blog!
Interested in writing for MUNner’s Daily? Go right ahead and fill out this form. We will get back to you soon!
