Perrydox.com is devoted to the pursuit of truth, whether plain or paradoxical, whether simple or sublime, or simply absurd yet absolute.
An Ethical Dilemma Before There Was An Ethical Dilemma
An ethical dilemma is commonly presented to college students. A runaway train is on course to collide with and kill 5 people down the track, but a bystander can intervene and divert the train resulting in killing just one person on a different track. What choice should be made?
1. Do nothing and let 5 people die?
2. Do something and let 1 person die?
One theory suggests saving the majority is right. Therefore, taking the life of one by your own hands is ethical. The other side says actively doing harm to one is wrong. We don’t have the right to take a life even if saving others is the result.
In both cases, the ones being saved and killed are innocent.
My purpose isn’t to solve this moral dilemma. I was reminded by this scenario of another ethical dilemma that isn’t so difficult because the motivation is purely selfish.
John 11 (CSB) 49) One of them, Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all! 50) “You’re not considering that it is to your advantage that one man should die for the people rather than the whole nation perish.”
While Caiaphas was guilty of selfishness, God caused the high priest to say this.
In this case, the many were not innocent while the one is.
If any human had decided to allow one innocent person to die to save many who are guilty, I would argue such is not ethical. However, since God is perfect, His plan to have one die to save the guilty is ethical. But how could this be? Unlike in the ethical dilemma suggested above, the innocent one, Jesus, volunteers.
John 10:18 (CSB) “No one takes it from me, but I lay it down on my own. I have the right to lay it down, and I have the right to take it up again. I have received this command from my Father.”
Aren’t you thankful Jesus volunteered to save the guilty? There should be no dilemma in what to do next.
Comments