Killing One To Save Five?

What makes things right? This is a classic philosophy question. A famous theory

that answers this question is utilitarianism, it says things that can improve the overall

happiness level of human beings are the right things to do(Dan, textbook chapter

10). To argue with this theory, someone builds a situation, that is a doctor secretly

kills a person named Nick and uses his organs to save five patients that will die

without these organs(Dan, textbook chapter 10). In this case, I believe most people

will say the doctor did the wrong thing, though this improve the overall happiness

level. However, to argue against this situation, someone builds another situation,

which says that a runaway trolley is about to crash five persons on the track, Corrine

is the onlooker, who can divert the trolley to another track where there is only one

person by switching the level(Dan, textbook chapter 10). In this situation, imaging

that she switches the level, the argument appears like this: “(TR1) If there is no

morally relevant difference between two actions A and B, then: if A is the right thing

to do, then B is the right thing to do (TR2) Diverting the trolley was the right thing to

do (TR3) There is no morally relevant difference between diverting the trolley and

killing Nick (TR4) So, killing Nick was the right thing to do”(Dan, textbook chapter 10).

In my opinion, diverting the trolley was not the right thing to do. To argue against

this, firstly I will explain why we might accept each of the concepts from this

argument, secondly, I will give my argument and concepts that are against TR2,

thirdly I will argue with a possible objection from others.

 For TR1, if there is no further difference between two actions, then we cannot

say one action is right and the other is wrong. This should be easily accepted because

for example, we cannot say killing a cat is wrong and killing a dog is right if there is no

special reason. For TR2, the trolley will kill 5 persons if Corrine doesn’t divert it. If

there must be someone to die, why not kill one and save five, this also fits into

utilitarianism because killing one to save five can improve the overall happiness. For

TR3, in both cases, a person chooses to kill one person to save five people and they

all have the choice to just allow things to happen as they should be, so there is no

morally relevant difference between these cases. TR4 is just a conclusion for TR1 to

TR3.

I want to contradict TR2. The most important point I want to state is that

allowing someone to die is totally different from killing someone and killing someone

especially when he/she is guiltless is one of the most morally wrong things to do.

Imagine that a poor gay is about to die without food and a rich man with enough

food walks through and sees him/her, the rich man just needs to give him/her a

sandwich so that he/she can be saved. In this situation, do you think the rich man

kills the poor gay? No, he doesn't, it is the hunger that kills the poor gay, at most we

can say the rich man is indirectly killing the poor gay, but that is not the same as

directly killing a person. As we all know and accept, everyone has the right to live.

This right is supreme and should be respected. Killing a person means to take away

this right from that person, nobody has the right to take away this without judgment

from the law for any reason. So killing a person on purpose should not be accepted
for any reason. Although sometimes we may comprehend the reason why killing a

person, that does not mean killing that person is the right thing to do. For example, a

man kills his enemy who had killed his whole family, we all know how much the man

hates his enemy and his enemy is deserved to be killed by him. However, it is still

wrong to just kill him instead of catching him and sent to the police. As a result,

killing a person is definitely a morally wrong thing to do. What about allowing people

to die? Allowing someone to die indeed seems merciless, but after all, it can be

accepted as natural progress, people have their choice to save others or not. Saving

others is what people are recommended to do, if a person chooses to not save a

person and let him/her dead, this is not the right thing to do, but no one can say it is

a wrong thing to do. It is just based on personal morally level, people don’t have to

save all persons’ life and it is also impossible to reach this goal. Based on these

results, let’s see whether it is right to divert the trolley. Corrine has the choice to not

do anything, those five persons will die by the trolley accident, it is crucial and will

probably make Corrine feel guilty to allowing them dead. However, she did nothing

wrong, it is not her responsibility to save those people. If she switches the level, that

means she chooses to kill that man on the other track, it is she that kills that man

instead of an accident, which is a morally wrong thing to do. In this way, TR2 is

wrong.

One may object that switching the level actually does not mean directly killing a

person, because finally, it is the trolley that kills that person because the trolley loses

control, so the trolley or the person that causes the problem in the trolley should
also respond to this event. In this way, diverting the trolley is not totally morally

wrong. Also, in this case, just allowing those people to die is also not a morally right

thing to do. As a result, switching the level can be accepted. I would say that though

it may be more acceptable if a person is not killing a person personally with weapons

or some other ways, just making the choice to kill someone itself is also morally

wrong. In fact, the level only gives Corrine the chance to make the decision instead of

giving her the right to do it. As I said, she does not have the right to take away other

persons’ life. In this way, she is still morally wrong by just switching the level. What is

more, it may seem morally wrong to allow others to dead since we have the

obligation to save other’s life when we enjoy our right to live. Nonetheless, is that

right to save persons’ life by killing others? If she chooses to sacrifice herself to save

those five people, no one can say she does the wrong thing, but she essentially saves

those people with other’s life, which is seriously wrong and unacceptable.