Who amongst you would let a child die?
We take morality for granted in Western society. We don’t often analyze our stances on what many would call “obvious” questions of ethics. We don’t hesitate to answer that life is precious– that indeed, it is the most precious thing in human existence. We don’t question the moral insanity of an individual who favors material things over the sanctity of life. They’re simply crazy. They’re lunatics. They’re deserving of ostracism.
But they’re remarkably like you and I. And sometimes they’re right. Hence, I again raise the question: Who amongst you would let a child die?
Most people would answer that they wouldn’t. Clearly, they argue, there is nothing more valuable than human life.
What about another human’s life though? Aren’t all lives weighted equally (in terms of moral standing, not socioeconomic)? Isn’t it morally insane to abandon equality?
I think many people get too wrapped up in the idea that no physical item is worth more than a human life. In a sense, I agree. If I had to choose between my watch and a stranger’s life, I’d gladly sacrifice the watch. There are a million watches I can have with relative ease. There is no replacement for a human life. But what if my life was literally dependent on my watch? (I’m a science fiction author. This isn’t even the weirdest idea I’ve come up with today).
Let’s say that you have a medical condition that requires a very special wrist watch. It’s the only one in the world. If you want, let’s even say that aliens bestowed it upon you while they were hunting Bigfoot. Its origin doesn’t matter; what matters is its function. It analyzes all your vital signs, administers medicine, and keeps your illness in check. With this watch, you are given reasonable hope to believe that you will live comfortably for another 30-40 years. If you don’t have the watch, it’s very likely that you will die within five. Again, this is the only one of these watches in existence. It’s impossible for it to be remade and replaced within those five years without vast sacrifice and donation from the community at large. This physical item is your lone means of future security and survival.
Now what if you were walking down the street and a strange man approaches you, pointing to a child in a nearby alley.
“I want to play a game,” he says with an immoral sneer. “You see that kid there? I’m going to take the li’l pistol I have in my pocket and shoot one bullet at him. Just one. Three seconds before I shoot, I’ll even holler at him. I’ll shoot this one bullet at that child there– unless you give me that pretty little wrist-watch.”
You try negotiating with the man, but he’s totally obstinate. He will shoot at this child unless you give him your watch. There’s no other way around it.
So what do you do? It’s merely a physical object, after all. Except for the fact that it’s clearly not. It’s more than just your watch. It’s your life on your wrist. Do you give that life to him in exchange for the child’s?
Now you certainly could. I think that the average individual would commend you for your selflessness. I’m not going to argue that it’s not the right or wrong moral decision. I will contend, however, that people wouldn’t hold it against you if you didn’t hand over the watch. Both yours and the child’s life are morally equal. Why sacrifice one for the other?
How about we assume, for the sake of argument, that you decide not to give up the watch. You reason that a) both your lives are equal; b) you need this watch to survive; c) there’s no guarantee that the man’s one bullet will hit the child (Even if the man is a phenomenal shot, that warning shout 3 seconds before the gun fires could be reasonably expected to alert the child. He could hear the shout and duck out); d) sacrificing your life for someone who could be reasonably expected to be fine without your intervention is definitely suicidal, if not downright stupid; e) while it’s possible that the community could rally around you and help recreate your miracle watch, why would they? Sure, you potentially sorta kinda saved the boy’s life. And they might potentially maybe sorta be grateful. But who’s to say that this will translate into real, physical assistance? It’s actually rare for these things to happen. It’s all way too risky for your taste.
It all seems reasonable, right? Let’s trade out the watch in this case. In fact, let’s change the situation entirely to something that’s perfectly parallel: Peter Unger’s infamous example of Bob and his Bugatti.
In this moral dilemma, we find that we are acquainted with a man named Bob who is fairly close to retirement. His retirement plan, in essences, is his Bugatti. He plans on selling that car to fund his retirement. Upon driving it to a local set of train tracks and embarking on a stroll, he notices a child playing on an adjoining track. He quickly notices that a ghost (i.e., empty) train is barreling towards the child . The child, however, is oblivious to the inclement danger. Bob can’t reach the child in time, nor can he stop the train. Instead, he only has one option: he can flip a nearby switch to divert the train into his Bugatti. Thinking about his financial security, Bob opts to not flip the switch.
This conclusion leads many people to confusion and introspection. I feel it should– this I what Unger was trying to accomplish. When Peter Singer used it as an example in his 2010 book, The Life You Can Save, he too, was trying to raise a point to make people ponder. And while this led to the aforementioned “many,” many more reacted with outrage. “How dare Bob not put the child’s life before the car? What immorality, what heinous thought!”
Yet these people would probably also agree with my perspective on the case of the watch and the shooter. What’s ironic is that these two are perfectly identical. The difference is in the name of the items. “A rose,” said sweet Juliet, “by any other name would smell just as sweet.” The implications of both examples are exactly the same. But how could that be? If it were so, then it would be morally acceptable for Bob to value his car over the child. His car! There’s nothing apparently vital imbued in the framework and metal of this classic car.
But it is so. And there is. Bob’s action is entirely justifiable and moral. Allow me to explain:
First: Many people forget that Bob’s retirement lies within that car. I won’t argue that it wasn’t foolish of him to not set up a more stable retirement account, but that’s not the issue here. C’est la vie. A person’s retirement fund is critical for their survival. They need money to buy groceries, pay bills, and provide for themselves. If they don’t have the means, they, like anyone else, could become homeless, impoverished, malnourished, and die. Make no mistake: Bob isn’t saving his car. He’s saving his life.
Second: People assume that the train is going to hit the child. I’m not sure if these people have ever been around a train before, but they’re incredibly loud. The clatter on the tracks can be heard from a long way away. By the time the train is 200 meters from the child (220 yards– the length of two American football fields), he’ll hear it coming. Even if it’s barreling at over 200 kilometers an hour (roughly 120 miles per hour), it will still give him roughly 4 seconds to react.
Some may argue that, perhaps, the child is deaf. No one knows that. No one knows if he is or isn’t. We’ve reached the problem of induction. However, the inductive reasoning that the child is deaf would be weak at best. With such a low percentage of the population experiencing functional deafness, it seems as if dissenters are merely grasping at straws.
Third: You can’t rely on the community. One of my favorite lines in theater comes from Blanche in Tennessee Williams’ A Streetcar Named Desire: “I have always relied on the kindness of strangers.” We can’t reasonably expect to always be able to rely on this assistance though. That’s what made Blanche’s statement ludicrous. There are many instances where a community will rally around a cause for a brief time and then abandon it for the next. This is understandable. Yet many believe that Bob would get help from local charities and citizens. It’s an idealistic view that neglects the reality of life. In the real world, true heroes are quickly forgotten. I can guarantee that you recently heard of a war veteran, struggling to re-adapt to life at home. The veteran was injured and we can be fairly certain that his or her sacrifices were more likely to have saved lives than Bob’s prospective sacrifice. Tell me that veteran’s name and how much money you’ve donated to help. Very few people will be able to give a definite answer to either. Or both.
I’m not lambasting you. I can’t recall either. While I donate to projects that benefit veteran’s groups, I can’t say that I’ve sufficiently helped our heroes. Why could Bob expect anything more?
We can now plainly see that Bob and his Bugatti are functionally identical to my example of the miracle watch. No one could reasonably expect you to hand over your watch to this thug; why would anyone expect Bob to effectively destroy his life?
We take the value of our physical items for granted. So much so that we neglect the worth of their function, as opposed to their form. If you had to steal an artificial heart and use it to safe a life, that’s one thing. If you had to rip it out of another person’s chest, that’s another entirely. Before we evaluate the moral worth of objects, we should decide the level of importance and attachment they have to another autonomous human being.
So we return to the original question: Who amongst you would let a child die? Perhaps this question is too unfairly phrased. It’s very polarizing after all. It shouldn’t be, “Who would let a child die?” It should be, “Who would sacrifice an innocent life to let another live– even when that other can be logically expected to live on without lethal intervention?”
Only one of these questions, when answered with an affirmative, demonstrates true moral insanity.
Image Credit
“Le 18h40 – TGV Paris Rennes” by mouton frisé. Creative Commons Flickr. Some rights reserved
First posted at The Quill And Dagger
Guest Author Bio
Peter Licari
P
eter Licari is an author and a freelance writer. He has over 100 credited articles, a number of which appear on Yahoo! News. His debut novel, The Dimensional Constant, is available on Amazon and on the Kindle. He is currently pursuing majors in Government and World Affairs and Philosophy at the University of Tampa’s Honors College. He resides in Tampa, but often reminisces about when he lived in Chuluota, Florida with his dog Buster.
Blog / Website: The Quill and Dagger
[…] the other is a philosophical article I wrote earlier this year (http://lifeasahuman.com/2013/mind-spirit/food-for-thought/who-would-let-a-child-die/). I actually majored in Philosophy while was at the University of Tampa. It’s a lot of fun just […]