Devil’s Advocate

Tragedy opposed to Evil

Who are we to decide who lives and dies? What right do people have to choose

death-rationalizing the decisions that strip others of their rights to live? In the face of

challenges, there are some inevitable consequences. These consequences are the living

conditions of life. Suffering is an essential part of human existence. And suffering exists as a

consequence of our limitations, every single person who is alive is going to experience

tragedy and every single person alive has to die. It is essential to the nature of human beings

and we are forced to deal with it. The distinction between an inevitable consequence of

limited being and the production of suffering for suffering's sake is a piece of invaluable

knowledge that aids people in choosing the correct path as they move forward. The Trolly

problem faces the dilemma of tragedy versus evil, the tendency to make decisions that will

minimize the level of unwanted suffering in others, fulfills the utilitarian concern with

providing the greatest happiness for the greatest amount of people, furthermore, an individual

is still left to suffer from the decision that they choose. Being forced to make a decision

quickly, with a lack of information, holding the balance of six lives in your hands, joining

with the odds of slightly fewer people suffering if you decide to kill one person on it, is

naivety, but above all else evil. When encountering a decision, not within an individual's

framework of thinking, usually something bad, coupled with the lack of understanding to

assist their philosophy (in Trolly Problem), they end up fragmented and devastated. The truth

of the matter is that in general people will do such things if they are granted the opportunity

and provided with the right apparatus. Above all else, human beings are rational, and because

of that rationality good people often choose to do bad things and make bad decisions if it

ultimately serves a greater purpose and that in itself is also evil. The all-inclusive idea that the

trolley problem brings, is that an individual's capacity for evil is substantial, because of the

ability granted to choose who lives and dies. When thrust into a position of opportunity to
play God, humans become egocentric, thinking only of themselves, and what decision would

have the least impact on them-killing fewer or more people? In the case of the Trolley

Problem when a person is forced into a thought experiment of highly unrealistic scenarios

and forced to make a judgment that will have wide-ranging implications and consequences

the results can be catastrophic because of the mental distress of allowing the person to

struggle with the choice of choosing who to spare. Consequently, when pressed into

encountering a decision, not within an individual's ideals like making trade-offs between

human lives, the true nature of someone can be deciphered that ultimately choosing

something for the greater purpose is evil, however, choosing to do nothing is wise because if

you weren't involved in the scenario who would die? The person's destined to die without the

individual's input, that is the tragedy of knowing the inevitable consequence of limited being.

Words: 521