Hello, readers! Welcome back to another term of the Educated Leadership blog. This term will have us examining ethics and corporate social responsibility. These are very important components of our toolkit as leaders.
Our first exercise has come in the form of some questions pertaining to an oncoming train and a group of children on the track (Anderson, unknown, p. 3-5). The first scenario has five children standing on the track and one child standing on a side-track. The question is whether we would throw the switch to send the train into the one child or leave the train on its path to hit the five. Scenario two has the six children on the same track tracks and an elderly man standing next to us at the switch. If we push the man onto the track, we save the children. Will we? The last scenario mimics scenario one and adds the caveat that the single child is our own and asks if we would throw the switch to send the trim into him/her.
After reading the scenarios, I was reminded of the Kobayashi Maru Scenario proposed in the Star Trek series by Gene Roddenberry. The scenario faced by the student was characterized as a “no-win” situation. Either the innocent civilians all die or the crew of the starship all die and a war breaks out. Stemwedel (2015) pointed out in an article on Forbes.com that good leaders attempt to make decisions that preempt the need to make no-win decisions. However, she noted that one of the underlying lessons of the scenario is that no matter how good a leader we may be and how careful we are in our decision process, the universe may put us in a no-win situation after all.
With those points in mind, let’s look at scenario one. Having been dropped into this situation and having body count as the main consideration, I would be likely to throw the switch. It would be a snap judgment. I could consider that the lone child was at least smart enough to be on the siding instead of the main track, as opposed to the others who were on the main line, but the numbers carry the day for me in this scenario.
Scenario two adds the twist of age consideration of the man that could be sacrificed. Though it is not offered as a choice, if the man is standing close enough for us to push in the way to stop the train, it would seem possible that we could sacrifice ourselves to stop the train, too. Initially, I thought I would push the man. However, after some consideration, I would be more inclined to flip the switch and aim the train at the lone child. Pushing the man would be a very personal act. I can justify flipping the switch by saying the lone child might have a slim chance of getting out of the way, too. Note that the scenario doesn’t allow for that.
The last scenario makes the situation personal. Because the single child is mine, I would now be inclined to push the man onto the track to save all the kids. The logic line would be to protect my child first, then act to minimize body count.
These decisions are terrible to be faced with doing. Lafollette noted, “Everyone agrees that if my behavior harms others, then it is subject to moral evaluation” (2007, p. 15). My moral code is under examination via exercises such as this. I am going to protect my family and minimize damage when faced with a split-second decision about which I have no time to gather further information. Yes, I may have killed the child who was going to grow up and cure cancer while saving the kids who write the computer code that evolves into artificial intelligence that turns machines homicidal. I don’t have that data, so I can’t use it to decide. I must rely on my moral and ethical code.
Remember, good leaders are doing all they can to make decisions in the near term that will minimize or eliminate the need to make decisions like the ones we just discussed. While we can hope to never face them in reality, exercises in making decisions that have terrible consequences are beneficial to a leader’s growth, even though they are uncomfortable to consider. We must stretch and be uncomfortable for learning to occur.
Anderson, T. (unknown). MSLD 634 1.5 RB (pp. 5). Cleveland, OH: Case Western Reserve University
LaFollette, H. (2007). The Practice of Ethics. Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing.
Stemwedel, J. D. (2015). The Philosophy of Star Trek: The Kobayashi Maru, No-win Scenarios, And Ethical Leadership. Retrieved from http://www.forbes.com/sites/janetstemwedel/2015/08/23/the-philosophy-of-star-trek-the-kobayashi-maru-no-win-scenarios-and-ethical-leadership/#2844917eb539
No comments:
Post a Comment