Ethical Considerations of Human Suffering

Consider the following anecdote, conceptualized by philosopher Peter Unger: John is about to retire, and he has put all his life’s savings into a rare car which appreciates in value each year. Not only does John derive great enjoyment from riding the car and taking care of it, but he knows that whenever he needs money, he can sell it for more than he bought it for, and he can live comfortable for the rest of his life.

One day, John parks his expensive rare car at the end of railway siding, and decides to take a walk up the main track. As he begins to walk, he sees a runaway train with no one aboard barreling down the track at over a hundred miles an hour. In the distance, John notices the small figure of little child. Surely, he understands, the baby will be killed by the runaway train if nothing is done. However, John sees that he can flip a switch and divert the train to the railway siding. He can therefore save the life an innocent baby, but destroy his car in the process. John, thinking of all the joy and financial security his expensive car represents, chooses to kill the innocent child, and save his car.

You probably think John’s choice was wrong. I know I certainly do. However, as a friend of mine eloquently points out, our world is full of choice everyday, choice not considered through ethical impartiality. Right now, at this very moment, there are people all throughout the world whose lives are threatened by the proverbial runaway train: millions of innocent people in this world are suffering and dying every year. Even in our own country, thousands are devastated by Hurricane Katrina, and thousands more are dying from starvation and preventable disease. Should mankind take action to promote human happiness? Should we take action to divert the train from tearing the life away from innocent humans everywhere, when nothing of equal moral value is sacrificed? It may seem like an easy question: the answer is yes. Near instant communications has brought mankind closer than ever, and, in turn, our responsibility to promote human happiness and reduce human suffering, our responsibiliy to flip the switch of the train, regardless of proximity, must be realized by all.

A 200 dollar donation, it has been conservatively estimated, is enough to save the life of a two-year-old child. How can we justify condemning John’s decision to save his car, when, everyday, we decide to purchase jeans, iPods, and expensive sunglasses at the cost of so much human misery worldwide? John must have thought himself quite unlucky to have to choose between saving the life of a baby girl and saving his car. However, we all face that choice everyday. If you still feel that John’s actions were wrong, donate to save the life of a child yourself: Unicef, Oxfam, Katrina Donation.