*Note before i finish this journal: this next block of text is a response to the above question (the notes title). The response is written by Marc Hauser and the question is from an article/interview entitled, 'the origin of right and wrong' by Josie Glausiusz in the Fall 2009 edition of 'The Brain' I loved this article and just wanted to share it with you all and wanted to know all of your opinions about it. Again: I DID NOT WRITE THIS RESPONSE. I take no credit. lol*

What is the evidence that we draw upon unconscious principles when making moral decisions?

"Let's take two examples. A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to the track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill once but save five. Most people think that's morally permissible - to harm one person when five are saved. Another case is when a nurse comes up to a doctor and says, "Doctor, we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a health person just walked into the hospital - we can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?" Nobody says yes to that one. Now, in both cases your action can save five while harming one, so they are identical in that sense. So why the flip-flop? People of different ages, people of different religious backgrounds, even people with different educations typically cannot explain why they think those cases differ. There appears to be some kind of unconscious process driving moral judgments without being accessible to conscious reflection." ~ Marc Hauser

~

So pretty much I think that it's because all you're doing in the train situation is flipping a switch. You can close your eyes. All those people are kind of at the same place. All on the tracks. I think the difference with the critical care case is that you would be physically ending that persons life and taking something from them for the benefits of others. They are, in a sense, being turned into a victim BY you. That and it's much more physically impacting to kill that person and pull out their organs. So i personally feel that the bigger the impact of your personal role in the situation creates a bigger guilt motivation inside of you. Besides, those people in the critical care were already dying anyway right? Why end the healthy persons life. The people on the tracks were probably all on an equal health level and you don't have to mix that into the equation. I find it interesting that the train case is fairly vague and not quite as personal as the critical care case.

I mean what if the one person on the other tracks was your husband or wife or child? or are they just random people? what if one of the people that needed an organ was the father of the nurse?

It's easy to make a moral decision when you put groups of people into a numbered status versus thinking, 'this is the child of some person'

Anyway, that was my own personal initial reaction, any thoughts from any of you out there?