Moral Dilemmas In The Book, Justice, By Michael Sandel

In his chapter, “Doing the Right Thing,” in the book, Justice, Michael Sandel focuses on the issue of morality and how does one put a price on the life or wound of another in a passage that appears in a section called, “Afghan Goatherds.” Sandel opens the passage by saying “Consider now an actual moral dilemma, similar in some ways to the fanciful tale of the runaway trolley, but complicated by the uncertainty of how things will turn out.” Next, he indicates that a team of Navy SEALs was on a mission in Afghanistan and were discovered by three goatherds. Following that, Sandel points out that letting the goatherds go free could give up their position and jeopardize the mission and their lives. Having made his point, Sandel then tells readers …show more content…
He implies that it is the possible to consider number of lives that will be lost in each outcome because it is clear that whenever you can you should save as many lives as possible. However, I would argue we should interfere only if we know that what we do will prevent an unexpected outcome, this way we play it safe, and prevent the skepticism of lives lost. My position on this issue is good one for several reasons. One is that although you may be taking a few lives you are preventing an infinite amount of possibilities of “what ifs” that could lead to a higher magnitude of death and destruction. We can see why this idea makes sense if we consider the following example: a total of 19 soldiers were killed because the necessary termination of three goatherds was not executed. Following what the SEALs knew was certain could have saved 19 lives by taking three. Another reason my idea makes sense is that we are not able to put blame on the decision maker for a poor decision because he was only doing what he knew needed to be done. We can see why if we consider the situation of the officer feeling the guilt of his poor decision to not kill the goatherds. If he would’ve killed them as he knew he should and followed through the mission as instructed he would have saved 19 lives and would not feel as though he has their blood on his hands. In a similar scenario where a trolley is threatening to kill …show more content…
In a different section titled “The Runaway Trolley” he poses a hypothetical scenario in which an runaway trolley car is barreling towards a group of 5 workers on the track who will surely die if the car is not diverted or stopped. As the scenario continues Sandel adds different variables that change the outcome of the trolley car incident. All the variables that are added to the problem pose the question that if you could take one life to save five, would you. Yes, in this hypothetical situation where you know all outcomes of every decision, the answer is clear, take the one to save the five. Therefore all decisions should be made to avert what, in the moment, may seem like a greater loss of life, right? I disagree. I believe decisions should be made based what we know to be certain and