Moral reasoning involves judgments about what is right or wrong in the society. Therefore, individuals in the society base their moral reasoning on the moral dilemmas in which they must make a difficult decision. Moreover, the individuals’ level of moral reasoning is defined by the reasoning used to defend a particular position held in a situation involving a moral dilemma. The choices made regarding a particular dilemma are not always indisputably right because they exhibit individual bias (Liu & Ditto, 2013). Based on the famous Trolley Dilemma I will explore the complexities surrounding moral reasoning of people. From the experiment, the analysis of my answers show a lot of inconsistencies indicating that moral reasoning is indeed a complex human thinking process.
I selected several answers in the preliminary questions based on my moral reasoning. Regarding the first preliminary question regarding torture, I considered torture as a morally wrong action. I view torture as a violation of the human right to fair treatment because the act is dehumanizing in itself. In my opinion, torture is morally wrong and should be condemned in the society. In the second preliminary question, I agreed to the opinion that morality of an action is determined by whether it maximizes the sum total happiness of all the people affected by it (Uhlamann et al., 2009). As such, I find it moral to act in a manner that serves the interests of the majority.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The third preliminary question seeks my opinion on whether causing another person’s death is moral. I responded that it is indeed morally wrong to cause someone’s death because everyone has a right to live. Therefore, I would be violating the rights of a person by causing his death. The final preliminary question was interesting because it focused on the effect of an action on the sum total happiness of humans involved. In response, I agreed that I am morally obliged to save innocent people without reducing the sum total of human happiness and without putting my life at risk.
The scenario questions exercised my moral reasoning a great deal. Regarding the scenario of the runaway train, I considered morally right to turn the train so as to kill one person instead of five people. This is because my selection maximized the sum total happiness of the people involved as one life will be lost instead of five people. Regarding the fat man on the bridge, I selected the option of pushing the fat man on the track to be killed by the train in order to save five people already on the track. I selected the answer because it is better to lose one life that to lose five lives. Regarding the scenario involving the fat saboteur, I selected the option of pushing the saboteur on the track to be killed in order to save five lives already on the track. This is because the fat saboteur was responsible for the failure of the train brakes and that the action will also save five other lives. With regards to the scenario involving the fat man and the ticking bomb, I considered morally right to torture the man to disclose the location of the bomb. I considered torture morally right because the outcome was likely to save a million lives.
In the analysis section, my preliminary answers and the scenario answers were inconsistent. This is because I had considered torture as morally wrong in the preliminary questions but later considered the torture of the fat man morally right in the scenario questions. This indicates that my moral values are inconsistent. Moreover, I had considered morally wrong to cause another person’s death but later agreed that it is morally right to cause another person’s death in the scenario questions. In the scenario involving the Runaway Train, The Fat Man on the Bridge and The Saboteur, I agreed to the killing of each of the people involved in order to save more others. This indicates a lack of consistency regarding my moral reasoning.
Comparing the answer of the other people who participated in the experiment with mine, it shows that different people exhibit different moral and ethical reasoning. 86% of the people concurred with me regarding turning the trolley so as to kill the fat man and save five lives. Only 39% of the people who participated in the experiment considered pushing the fat man on the track morally right while the rest objected. Concerning pushing the Saboteur on the track, 75% of the people agreed with my answer that it is morally right to push the saboteur on the track. Finally, 78% of the people who participated in the experiment, like me, considered torturing the fat man as morally right. This experiment demonstrates that moral reasoning differs from individual to individual as well as from culture to culture. Moreover, the moral reasoning of individuals is not consistent because their moral reasoning is often used to defend a given position regarding a dilemma.
References
Uhlmann, E. L., Pizarro, D. A., Tannenbaum, D., & Ditto, P. H. (2009). The motivated use of moral principles. Judgment and Decision Making , 4 (6), 479.
Liu, B. S., & Ditto, P. H. (2013). What dilemma? Moral evaluation shapes factual belief. Social Psychological and Personality Science , 4 (3), 316-323.
