However, according to Trevino and Nelson, diverting the runaway train to an alternative track will result in the death of one person who is standing unawares on the alternative track (95). What would be the best course of action in such a case? From a teleological perspective, diverting the train to the alternative track would seem most reasonable as it would save the life of five people. The end in this case - saving the lives of five people, effectively justifies the means, i.e. pulling the lever so as to divert the train to an alternative route where it will kill only one person.
To begin with, this kind of reasoning in my view erroneously assumes that there can only be a single means to a definite end. However, this is not always the case. For instance, in the example I have offered above, the person standing by the lever could try to warn the five bystanders of an oncoming runaway train. Further, it is also important...
If we permit the killing of one individual so as to save several other lives, we would inevitably be trampling on the rights of the said individual.
Next, teleological arguments view the ends as being unequal. This is however not the case. For instance, in the example I have given above, all courses of action would result in death. Although one course of action in this case results in fewer deaths, the consequences are almost identical when one looks at the end result. Thus in the final analysis, the ends do not ever justify the means.
Works Cited
Bradburn, Roger. Understanding Business Ethics. London: Thomson Learning, 2001. Print.
Trevino, Linda, and Katherine A. Nelson. Managing Business Ethics: Straight Talk About How To Do It Right. 5th ed. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, 2010. Print.
