because it actually places two fairly well-defined ethical systems in contrast. On the one hand, there is "Mr. Spock's" system, based on the value that the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. On the other, there is the system of "enlightened self-interest" -- doing what will bring the greatest ultimate happiness to the individual making the choices.
When using "Mr. Spock's" philosophy, the choice is obvious: I should head for the trees and take my chances there. This will endanger the fewest people.
However, self-interest tells me to take a chance on the skills of each driver acting for hir own safety, and to try to ride the line between the bus and the approaching car.
Interestingly, when I play the gedankenexperiment out in my mind, I find that my first instict is to head for the trees -- get off the road and out of the danger situation. But this is a choice almost guaranteed to bring me physical harm and financial loss. It makes me wonder why I would make such a choice at such a gut-reaction level.
Thinking calmly, I know the bus driver has been trained to protect the kids and to try to make as much room available on the road to allow for an avoidance or a minimization of the damage of the collision. I also know I have enough skill to ride the very fine line between two approacjing vehicles and that there is enough room on a typical road for three vehicles abreast. And, also, if I work out the likeliest courses of the collision, it is by riding the line that I and the bus full of kids have the likeliest chance of coming out of this mess shaken up and bruised, and it's the fool who tried to pass who's likeliest to end up saying hello very briefly to the last tree he'll ever see, thus giving evolution its due chance to improve the species.
But fear, more so than anything else, inclines me to take the path into the trees. Curious. |
