You are the driver of a runaway train hurtling down the track at high speed. On the track ahead of you are five track maintenance workers who cannot escape and will definitely be killed when you collide with them. All of the train’s controls have malfunctioned except for one lever which could divert your course onto a side-track thus saving the lives of the five workers. However, on this side-track you can see one solitary worker who also would not be able to escape in time and would definitely be killed when the train hits them.

QUESTION:

Should you divert the train to the side-track, killing the one person to save the five?

Is it right to kill one to save the lives of five?

You are standing on a railway bridge watching with horror as a runaway train thunders towards you. On the other side of the bridge you can see five track maintenance workers who will not be able to escape in time even were you able to warn them. There is no side-track for the train to divert onto, and therefore no escape for the five workers. They will definitely be killed when the train hits them. The only way that they could be saved would be if some external force such as a very heavy object was to obstruct and derail the train before it reached the workers. Looking around you, the only available object heavy enough to stop the train is an extremely large man who is leaning on the railing next to you. If you were to give him just a gentle push he would fall onto the track and his mass would be sufficient to derail the train and save the lives of the five. Unfortunately, he would of course be killed.

QUESTION:

Should you push the heavy man off the bridge, killing one person to save five?

Is it right to kill one to save the lives of five?

You are a surgeon with five terminally ill patients each of whom could be saved by a transplant of a healthy organ from a deceased donor. A healthy man walks into your ward where the five ill patients lie. This man’s internal organs could save the lives of the five ill patients.

QUESTION:

Should you kill the healthy man and distribute his organs to save the lives of five?

Is it right to kill one to save the lives of five?

A piece of space debris has collided with the International Space Station causing widespread damage. The six crew aboard have managed to retreat safely to a sealed compartment. Due to the damage caused by the collision, the only way to reach the Soyuz capsule to return safely to earth will be by exterior space-walk. The crew have access to their spacesuits, but unfortunately five out of six suits have been damaged. Only one crew member’s suit remains viable. Components of this crew member’s suit could be used to repair each of the five other crew members spacesuits, but this would leave the sixth crew member without a viable suit to escape. Oxygen levels will run out before a rescue mission from earth could reach the stranded crew. You are the mission controller on earth, and you must decide what to do.

QUESTION:

Should you instruct the crew to distribute the parts of the one viable spacesuit, sacrificing one crew member to save five?

Is it right to kill one to save the lives of five?

You are walking through the park on your way to a job interview. As you pass a shallow pond, you notice a small child in the water. The child is crying out for help and appears to be in danger of drowning. There is nobody else around, and you are quite capable of wading out into the water to rescue the child. However, if you do wade into the pond to save the child you will ruin your clothes and quite possibly miss your job interview.

QUESTION:

Should you rescue the child even though your clothes will be ruined and you might miss your interview?

Is it worth a small personal sacrifice to save a life?

You are walking through the park on your way to a job interview. As you pass a shallow pond you are greeted by a friendly fundraiser who tells you of a famine in a far off country. This sincere and trustworthy individual informs you that many children are at risk of immanent death due to malnourishment, and that a small cash donation of €5 could be used by the charity they represent to feed one starving child until the famine is over. You have €5 in your pocket but you need this for your bus ticket to get to your interview on time.

You gave €25 to a fundraiser from a different charity yesterday, who promised you that this money would be used to save the lives of five children at risk of death from a deadly disease.

QUESTION:

Should you give €5 today to save a far off dying child even though this might cause you to be late for your job interview.

Is it worth a small personal sacrifice to save a life?

Mary and her partner Joseph have decided they would like to have a baby as soon as possible. Unfortunately, in a bizarre accident last week they were both exposed to a radiation leak. A letter arrives with the results of tests conducted following the radiation exposure explaining that if Mary becomes pregnant in the next six months there is an extremely high probability that the child will be born with blue hair and will also have the visual abnormality of monochromacy (complete colour blindness). This cruel combination means that they will live their life looking different to those around them, but never being able to perceive or understand this difference themselves.

However, after this six month period the effects of the radiation will have passed and a child conceived will be born with no increased risk of abnormality.

QUESTION 1: Is it wrong for Mary and Joseph to choose to have a baby now, knowing that this child’s life would be less perfect than the child conceived in six months time?

QUESTION2: Do Mary and Joseph harm their child by bringing it into existence now rather than in six months time?

(HINT: The child conceived this month is a different child to the one conceived in six months time.)

The natural resources of the earth are finite: there is only so much oil, lithium, cobalt, etc. on the planet. Some resources can be recycled, but others cannot. Once these resources, such as oil, have been depleted, there will be no more.

There is a benefit for humanity in using these materials now. But depletion today means that future generations of humans will suffer the lack of these resources.

If humans today abstain from resource depletion, we will have to sacrifice our current levels of comfort and convenience.

If we suffer this lack today, future humans will benefit from the availability of these resources.

QUESTION 1: Is it wrong for humans today to choose to deplete resources rather than consume them at sustainable levels?

QUESTION 2: Do humans today cause harm to future humans by depleting the earth’s resources?

(HINT: Speculative generations of future humans conceived under different sets of circumstances will be different sets of humans. Compared to a generation with the benefit of sustained resources, the depletion generation may have a lower quality of life but they may still live happy and fulfilled lives. Can we say that our actions have harmed these individuals who have known no other reality?)

The world in which we live is a designed world. We design our world and our world designs us as the environment, culture and social structures we have created shape and influence us in return. This designed world is far from perfect. Injustice, corruption, violence, hunger and illness abound. While some live lives of privilege, leisure, luxury and excess, many others toil and suffer, lacking basic essential resources and goods.

You have been given absolute power to create a fresh start, resetting and redesigning the ordering principles of the society in which you live. Your power will only last for five minutes after which the universe will reset according to your plan and you will return to your normal self. Where do you start? As Supreme-Emperor-Designer what principles would you establish to set your society running in the best possible way? Would you tip the scales to give some groups advantages, or try to create a balance to give everyone equal opportunities?

QUESTION:

As Supreme-Emperor-Designer, what three simple rules would you decree to establish your ideal balance of powers, opportunities, rights, and responsibilities in your perfect fresh-start society?

Imagine now that as part of the deal in which you become absolute ruler for five minutes, you have to step behind a special curtain called “the veil of ignorance”. As soon as you step behind the curtain your memory will be temporarily wiped so that you cannot remember your own identity. You don’t know if you are rich or poor, where you live, what your ethnicity, gender, heritage or beliefs are. You don’t know what height or age you are, or if you have a disability. You have absolute power to recreate society as you wish, but you don’t know which position within society you will find yourself in once you emerge from behind the veil.

QUESTION:

Under these circumstances would you:

OPTION A: Blindly guess who you think you might possibly be, and try to create the best possible world for that type of person.

OPTION B: Design a perfect utopia for as many people as possible. Quite a lot of people will have to suffer intolerable poverty to maintain this luxury for the fortunate few. Blindly hope you’re one of the lucky ones.

OPTION C: Design a society with the best possible worst-case scenario for everyone.

Even if you end up being the worst off, your conditions of existence will be acceptable.