Decision Making Process

Question 1

Statistical facts say that every day 40 decisions of each person can become fatal to others or to himself (Wei, Heckman, Crowston & Li, n.d.). At first glance, the decision about the salvation of the majority of children is precisely right. The life of one child seems a smaller loss than a few lives. At first sight, I would choose to change the direction of the train, sacrificing one child in order to save a few. However, this decision raises a moral dilemma, since in any case at least one life will depend from my decision. This dilemma shows the need to analyze the situation basing on not only the number of victims, but also on the standpoint of morality, logic and law obedience. After this analysis, I have changed my opinion to the contrary one.

First of all, only one child chose to play on the safe track, which had not been used for a long time. Other children were not bothered about their safety, and thus exposed themselves to risk. I came to a kind of ethical absurdity: my choice to interchange the train on the track with one child is the decision to kill an innocent person, who worried about his life. He knew that the train would not go there, and sacrificing communication with the majority he chose safety. The reasons of his separation from other children are unknown. However, if we assume that he specifically did not want to play with the majority only because of their wrong choice of dangerous play place, change the course of the train will be a great injustice.

In our time, the behavior of the majority determines the behavior of an individual. Many teens start to drink alcohol, take drugs and commit other wrongdoings, knowing that it is illegal or wrong. They decide to do it only because of the fact that this pattern of behavior is inherent to all of their surroundings. Only a few people in such situations prefer to sacrifice their own recognition in society, relations with the majority to choose legal, good, correct and safe behavior. So, it is the greatest unfair to deprive the most valuable thing – life for the right moral choice. In my opinion, a direction of the train should not be changed.

Question 2

The will of every human, – the ability to decide is a great gift of the Creator, a chance to change ourselves and surrounding world. If my child was sitting on the disused track while other children ignored the rules and were playing on a dangerous place, my decision would be not to change the direction of the train. If, answering the first question, I decided to change the direction of the train, in this case any arguments would be contrary to logic, but I would change my decision. I would do everything possible to protect my child and not to let him die.

However, in the both cases my opinion is the same. I am deeply convinced that, regardless of kinship, I should not change the direction. Children who were sitting on the used track knew that they were playing in a dangerous place. They knew that their feelings should be sharpened, that they needed to listen carefully to hear the train in advance. Thus I would not endanger my child, who played in a safe place, because of the stupid behavior of others.

Our mankind often has such a dilemma, it puts the priority of some group according to its number. The consequence of such choice is approval of impunity of illegal behavior. Choosing my child, I become a participant of the educational system that teaches to be responsible for own actions. I resist the fact that most children may grow and become criminals, knowing that they can break the rules, break the law, but not be punished only because of their number. I would not only defend my blood and my offspring, I would defend my country, its strength and absoluteness of its laws. My decision to change the direction of the train would change the world for the worse, adding injustice and pain. Therefore, I would not change the direction of the train.

Question 3

Every day, thousands of people make decisions. Some solutions seem simple, dictating the choice of clothing, a restaurant for dinner or a movie for entertainment. Other solutions may frighten by their difficulty, because the choice of a life partner or the most important report for the Board of Directors has huge consequences (Lunenburg, 2010). In this situation, if the children playing on the one track were terminally diagnosed, I would not change the motion of the train, as the change can cause serious consequences.

First of all, the cold logic dictates that a healthy child has more not rights, but chances to live than terminally diagnosed children. Perhaps my answer is cruel, sick children evoke pity and a desire to help. However, the best solution is not to change the direction of the train, since it may not only lead to the death of a child, but also endanger the lives of passengers of the train. Disused track may be in poor condition, which can lead to the accident, and the number of victims will be much greater. My desire to help for terminally diagnosed children can be harmful to the huge crowd of passengers, who have entrusted their lives to the quality of the railway.

From the position of a cold logic, many other innocent people should not be punished for the wrong choice of the majority of children. I would leave the child and train passengers alive, because they themselves chose to live. The reason for my decision is not the physical state of sick children who play on the used track; it is the common justice of people’s choice: everyone should take a responsibility for his actions.

Related Free Society Essays