ACTIVITY NO.

3 (ON NATURAL LAW ETHICS)

Imagine you are driving a car with a malfunctioning brake and with a speed of 120 km/h.
In the distance, you spot some students who are crossing the pedestrian lane. Even if
they do spot your car coming, they won’t be able to react and avoid the collision in time.
When you realize what is going to happen, you observe that there are four students on
the right lane of the road and there is only one student on the left lane of the road. Would
you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa?

A. In the light of Natural Law Ethics, lists at least five things that you want to consider
in this kind of situation before you decide and act. It must be in order according to
importance/significance. (50 pts)
1. Preservation of Life
2. Action
3. Intention
4. Circumstances
5. Consequences

B. Would you avoid the four students to save one student or vice versa? Present your
arguments/reasons. Minimum of 3 arguments. (50 pts)
1. First, it is vital to note that life is valuable regardless of the situation, and thus every
student must be saved. Choosing between lives should never be sautéed in a casserole
of options since according to the principle of inviolability, life, no matter how lived, has
equal worth and dignity. Additionally, our innate nature is to live and preserve our lives,
and no species should disrupt our natural tendency for survival. From the lens natural law
of Ethics, it is always wrong to sacrifice one life to save four. Hence, I should do everything
to keep the students safe, even in the face of a malfunctioning brake.

2. Second, however, there are circumstances that a person is trapped inside the chamber
of a moral dilemma wherein they need to choose between lives, just like this scenario.
Before I wear the shoes of the car driver, let us emphasize first that the car driver faces a
conflict between negative duties. Negative duties are the obligations to refrain from
harming others since a man in nature always seeks good. The negative duties in the
scenario are the negative duty not to kill four students and not to kill one. Because the
circumstances make it impossible to act on both duties, it calls for a choice between one
life or four. Ergo, I, as a driver, should carry out the duty that entails the least number of
harms. According to the principle of double effect, you should go for the one that
maximizes well-being for the most significant number of people.

3. Third, one of the reasons why I chose the four over one is my intention. My intention
isn’t about harming one or four but attempting to save as many as I can from an accident
that is going to happen.

4. Lastly, in connection with the third argument, the situation made me ask, “was the
action wants me to do good, and was evil intended in the action?” With regards to the
scenario, I want to save four people. Is this good? Yes, I would say it is; it is still preserving
and protecting life. When I go to the left lane of the road, did I intend evil? Not really. I
intend to save the four students, which is good. I did not plan to harm or possibly kill that
one student. It is an unfortunate situation that the intention is always good; it just has a
harmful effect.

C. Is your decision and/or action morally justifiable? Explain, elaborate, or expound

your answer? (50 pts)

Choosing the four students inflicts harm or demise to the one student; even if it is
not my intention to do so, I am still not morally justified because turning into the left lane
is an act of conscious decision. From the lens of the Natural law of Ethics, my action is
immoral since I have violated the natural tendency of man to survive. Also, from the very
beginning, killing is intrinsically evil. Regardless of my intention or motive for saving the
four students is anchored, it will never be enough to change the notion that I have expense
a life. My good intention in choosing the four students over the one may diminish the
capability of the action, but it does not necessarily mean that my decision is morally
justifiable.