A trolley is hurtling down the tracks. There are five workers on the track ahead of the trolley, and they will definitely be killed if the trolley continues going straight ahead since they won’t have enough time to get out of harm’s way. There is a spur of track leading off to the side where another person is working. The brakes of the trolley have failed and there is a switch, which can be thrown to cause the trolley to go to the sidetrack. If you pull the switch, the one worker will surely be killed. What should you do?
This philosophical question is one, which relates directly to our readings on Mill. John Stuart Mill considered himself a utilitarian which a code of ethics that seeks to maximize the happiness for the greater good. What Mill resented about the totalitarian theory is that is was at the risk of the individual as it sought to help “the greatest number of people.” Mill wished to protect the individual and thus became a central activist for freedom of speech and expression. While I now live in a country that allows me to say and do just about whatever I want, I still know that my government works to protect the majority, leaving the minorities to fend for themselves. This brings me back to the train track analogy: would my country pull the switch for one single person, I am inclined to say no. However, I am fortunate enough to have lived during a monumental moment in history where a country fought for the life of a single individual.
What I am referring to is the returning of Gilad Shalit to his home in Israel in 2011. If you are not familiar with this event, Gilad Shalit was an Israeli soldier that was held captive by Hamas (an Islamic resistance movement) for five years.
Here is a video of Gilad during his captivity, which was sent to the Israeli government by Hamas:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rUR5HIHkYUs
After these five years of compromises, campaigning, anger and sadness, Israel finally won the battle – while possibly threatening the country’s security and well-being. After all these years, negotiations were finally settled. This news was without-a-doubt something to celebrate, but also one to fear.
Hamas did not agree to return Gilad without putting up an unbelievable fight. In order for this one Israeli soldier to be returned safely, Israel agreed to free 1,027 of their Palestinian soldiers – including at least 300 prisoners, sentenced for killing Israeli citizens. While the return of their soldier and hero was incredible, the risk in doing so was unimaginable.
Putting good-natured morals aside, it is hard not to wonder how the Israeli government came to such a dangerous decision. Every citizen, (especially one serving to protect the country), should count – but at what cost? A Washington Post article explained:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously warned that a swap for Shalit would free dangerous militants and put Israel’s security at risk. But amid a relentless campaign by Shalit’s family that won the hearts of the Israeli public, Netanyahu ultimately bowed.”
Though frightening, the decision that Israel made is unbelievably commendable. They picked the one worker on the trolley track over the five because they unconditionally value each and every one of their own. Does this send the message to dangerous organizations that they can easily take advantage of the little ethical country? Maybe. Either way, Israel did not turn on the imprisoned soldier, and everyone must acknowledge and learn from this dilemma. This decision is an example of protecting the individual under all circumstances, which Mill thought was essential even within his totalitarian ideals.
After these five years of compromises, campaigning, anger and sadness, Israel finally won the battle – while possibly threatening the country’s security and well-being. After all these years, negotiations were finally settled. This news was without-a-doubt something to celebrate, but also one to fear.
Hamas did not agree to return Gilad without putting up an unbelievable fight. In order for this one Israeli soldier to be returned safely, Israel agreed to free 1,027 of their Palestinian soldiers – including at least 300 prisoners, sentenced for killing Israeli citizens. While the return of their soldier and hero was incredible, the risk in doing so was unimaginable.
Putting good-natured morals aside, it is hard not to wonder how the Israeli government came to such a dangerous decision. Every citizen, (especially one serving to protect the country), should count – but at what cost? A Washington Post article explained:
“Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had previously warned that a swap for Shalit would free dangerous militants and put Israel’s security at risk. But amid a relentless campaign by Shalit’s family that won the hearts of the Israeli public, Netanyahu ultimately bowed.”
Though frightening, the decision that Israel made is unbelievably commendable. They picked the one worker on the trolley track over the five because they unconditionally value each and every one of their own. Does this send the message to dangerous organizations that they can easily take advantage of the little ethical country? Maybe. Either way, Israel did not turn on the imprisoned soldier, and everyone must acknowledge and learn from this dilemma. This decision is an example of protecting the individual under all circumstances, which Mill thought was essential even within his totalitarian ideals.
No comments:
Post a Comment