Ethics in scientific research and practice

Ethics in Science

Do the Ends Ever Justify the Means?

We all face ethical dilemmas at some point. Sometimes, we are called upon to choose between several courses of action. However, in some instances, these alternative courses of action could be equally undesirable. This effectively puts us in a moral dilemma as selecting either course of action comes with a cost tag. One of the many examples of ethical dilemmas that has been advanced over time is a scenario whereby as a result of a medical condition, the life of an unborn baby has to be terminated as allowing the pregnancy to proceed to full term could bring about the death of the mother. What would be the best course of action in such a case? Citing various reasons, some could argue that saving the mother's life would be most appropriate. On the other hand, there are those who could be of the opinion that saving the life of the baby would be the best course of action. It is with such scenarios in mind that ethical theorists have in the past developed a number of ethical principles to guide decision making. One such viewpoint is teleological ethics which in its most pure form according to Bradburn "focuses on the 'ends', the results of the decision rather than the method of getting to that result" (3). In such a case, the end according to the author essentially justifies the means. However, do the ends ever justify the means?

In my view, the ends do not at any time ever justify the means. In its most bare form, this ethical system seeks to promote acts that would ordinarily be bad, unjust, immoral, or unethical if such acts in the end lead to good consequences. Such a line of reasoning has a number of fatal flaws. In seeking to further explore the topic, I will make use of an ethical dilemma Trevino and Nelson offer in their book. In the dilemma, five people will inevitably be killed if a runaway train which is headed in their direction is not diverted. 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.