1. Jason “never deliberately hurt anyone and what laws he broke were negligible.” Is this enough to have a clear conscience？
I think this is not enough to have a clear conscience. If somebody had been hurt due to a person’s mistake but not deliberately, or the person didn’t want to hurt anyone, but when he faced to choose between personal benefit and other peoples’ life, he chose the first one. In this situation, this person still has the responsibility to others. On the other hand, laws are always laws. Everyone should limit personal behavior no matter the law is important or negligible.
2. In Jason’s first dream he has to decide between doing nothing and letting a dozen teenagers die or diverting the train that will now kill one person.
Jason had very short time to think about this question, and finally he preferred to divert the train to save the dozen teenagers, which is the larger number. I think if I were Jason, I would do the same thing.
3. In making life and death decisions, does it matter who the people are who will die? Does it matter what they are doing or why they are there? What other factors may go into making this decision?
It doesn’t matter that who the people are who will die. In making life and death decisions, everyone is the same. Nobody is more important than others. Everyone’s life is precious. It also doesn’t matter what they are doing or why they are there because they already there, and the most important factor is that which way we can use to save people’s life as much as we can.
4. Jason is changed by 9/11. He says that his non-violence had been “a rationalization for his cowardice.” Do you agree? Do you think his change was for the better?
I cannot totally agree with his point. I agree that he want to move to the dorm, stay away from his neighborhood for avoiding, is kind of cowardice, and he use non-violence as an excuse. But it doesn’t mean the non-violence idea is wrong, and we cannot definite it as “a rationalization for his cowardice”, it depends on the situations. In this part, I think that non-violence idea is reasonable in general conditions. I think Jason’s changed overly in his mind, I don’t think it is better for him to think that violence is a good way to save problems.
5. Despite the army’s encouragement for his to become an officer, Jason rejects the invitation. He says he wants “no part of making decisions that affected the lives of others.” Is there an obligation to assume responsibility when you have the ability? Is Jason suggesting that he simply wants to following orders?
Yes, there is an obligation to assume responsibility when you have the ability. In this condition, if Jason accepted the position whose decisions would affect others’ lives, then he would have the obligation of responsibility of those lives. Jason might not mean that he simply wants to following orders, but he doesn’t want to decide others’ lives.
6. Jason asks himself how you decide when there is a conflict between orders given and ethical principles. What is your answer?
I would choose orders. I’m a soldier, and my first principle is follow the orders whatever the reason and ethical principles. Although the ethical principles are very important, my profession is special. I would do everything in ethical principles if I’m not work in the army.
7. Jason comes to the conclusion that “minimizing casualties was the right thing to do.” Do you think this is a good moral precept?
I think this is a good moral precept. In that situation, to do nothing would mean a half-dozen dead, but diverting the train meant one dead. He just had two choices. Whatever he decided, it must have somebody to be hurt and go to die. Assuming that if he had no idea and did nothing, all people around the train would be going to die. Thus, I think he did the right thing.
8. “Killing was sometimes a necessary evil,” Jason believes. Do you agree? Under what conditions is killing moral?
Yes, I agree with this point. Sometimes killing could also mean saving. For example, the terrorists, one killing may could save a lot of people. So under this condition, killing is moral.
9. Do you think Jason would make a different decision if the herders were boys or men?
I think he would make the same decision no matter the herders were boys or men because everybody is same. There is no difference between different genders. The herders are innocent people, so Jason would not leave them to be hurt.
10. The West Point Cadet Prayer says, “The essence of duty is acting in the absence of orders of direction from others, based on an inner sense of what is morally and professionally right.” On what basis does Jason make his decision to let the girls go?
I think Jason followed this principle; on the ethical basis, Jason preferred to do what he thought was morally and professionally right, not hurt the innocent people, so he let the girls go.