A few decades ago, the strongest earthquake in human history
had attacked China, causing 650,000 deaths and 160,000 injuries. The succor
arrived as soon as the earthquake ended. However, a headachy situation
interrupted the rescue process. When the rescuers found three children under a
concrete wall, two of the children were pinned on the left and one of them was
on the right. The wall positioned like a lever, the only way to save the two
children was to squash the third to death. The first intuitive reaction for the
rescuers was to save the two, but is it the right choice? If not, what’s the
right thing to do?
In one sense, all theories of distributive justice deem that
people should get what they deserve. In that case, innocent people shouldn’t
die. But in that example I just gave, the children, they are all innocent, they
all deserve to live. So then people started weighting what’s worth vs. what’s
not. If one child’s death could save the other two’s life, people thought, that
maybe worth. But that kid was in the same situation with the other two; he was
also cuddling in the dark corner, hands over his mouth, wishing to be the one
who would be saved. He must have felt like his destiny couldn’t be determined
by himself anymore, but by the man outside with the crowbar. The other two, on
the other hand, were shivering under terrible fears as well; they also had the
desire to live.
So in a harsh situation like that, what should we do? If it
was me who was holding the crowbar, I would put it down and walk away. Even
avoiding problems are not a way to solve them; but when someone’s life is on
your decision and you are absolutely sure that you can’t afford whatever you
choose to do, then the best way is not to make a choice.
People may ask will you feel guilty when you were walking
away? Yes, I’m. But sometimes facing the guilty is the right thing to do, and
that was what the rescue group did, they passed the buck to their boss and
left.
Don’t find right
thing to do—feel it.
No comments:
Post a Comment