Moral dilemma - Part II
In my previous post, we explored a pretty straight-forward scenario. The decision whether to sacrifice the one to save the many is a relatively simple one. When we come to more loaded issues such as abortion and euthanasia, the decision people make is highly polarised. It is usually heavily influenced on their religious beliefs.
A new scenario
So, to get away from the effects religion has on making moral decisions, a woman named Judy Thompson created the following scenario:
A woman wakes up one day and there’s a man lying in bed next to her. Another man walks up to her and says, “look I’m terribly sorry, we’re from The Society of Music Lovers, the man lying next to you in bed is a world famous violinist, he’s in kidney failure and I hope you don’t mind, we’ve plugged him into your kidney. If you stay plugged in for the next nine months he will survive and you will save the world’s greatest violinist.”
What would you do? Is it morally permissible for the woman to unplug herself from the violinist? Most people would agree that it is. The woman had no choice in the matter.
The similarity of this situation is similar to that of a pregnant woman where the violinist/fetus required the woman for it’s survival. The difference is that there is no commitment requirement from the “host”.
Let’s change the scenario slightly...
She says, “sure, let’s stay plugged in”. So for two months she makes the commitment. To make IT really like the abortion case, the violinist is unconscious, so her commitment is to the guy from The Society of Music Lovers. She stays plugged in for two months and after two months she goes, “this is a drag, I’m unplugging”. So she pulls the plug out and he dies.
Is it morally permissible for the woman to unplug herself from the violinist? Most people would disagree here specifically due to the commitment she made to stay connected.
Does it depend on your religious upbringing?
The interesting thing discussed on the show was that people who differ in their pro-choice/pro-life or religious beliefs did not differ in their judgment on the above situations.
So, why does religion play such a huge part in politics and debates where these scenarios are tested out? What is it about the terms “abortion” and “euthanasia” that cause people to change their moral judgments?