To Kill or Let Die

To kill or to let die – What would you choose? You are standing on a platform at a train station. An out-of-control train carriage is coming down the track past the platform, there are three workers repairing the same track further down the line. They don’t have time to get out of the way of the carriage, the only way to save them would be to push the very large person next to you down the track, the person’s body will act to halt the train thus killing him but saving the three workers. Both options seem morally wrong then again we only have two choices and in this case I would rather standby than push the large person.

Good arguments exist for both pushing the person onto the tracks and for not pushing them. The argument for not pushing the large person is from the no-harm principle which says that an action is permissible if and only if it does not harm others. Since pushing the person next to me onto the tracks below will kill them, and so harm them, the no-harm principle appears to say that the act of pushing them is not permissible. Since the act is not permissible, I should not therefore push them.
On the other hand, the argument for pushing comes from the minimize-harm principle which says that faced with two courses of action, you should choose that action which minimizes the amount of harm that results. Since pushing the person next to you onto the tracks will kill them but save the three workers down the line, it is the action which will minimize the harm that results. So you should push the person next to you.

(1)
P1) An action is permissible if and only if no harm results.
P2) Pushing the large person will kill him thus harming him.
C) Therefore, pushing the large person is not permissible.

(2)
P1) An action is...

... middle of paper ...

...n fact, the thought wouldn’t even cross my mind, I believe identity is a powerful force in determining one’s actions, if the three workers on the track were not some unknown people but my own brothers, I would not hesitate to save them by pushing the large person.

In all, the no harm and minimize harm arguments are both unsound and cannot be used to base my decision on. Both options available are immoral, however based on the discussion in which I have argued in favour of my belief that killing is worse than dying, in a situation like this, I would let the three people die rather than kill the large person. If however, I had close relations to the workers on the track then my actions would be different. This discussion was focused on a particular scenario, on a much larger scale though, in direct and indirect ways people continue to kill or let other people die.