Moral Absolute Versus Moral Choice
By Charbel El-chaar
Every human being will face moral, social, and bioethical choices throughout his or her life. The choice of the Trolley car, the choice of pushing the fat man, and the choice of taking the life of a healthy person are examples that highlight the distinction between moral absolutes, moral choices, and acts that are inherently evil. We cannot commit an illegal act to justify a desired result.
The Trolley Car: A Moral Absolute
The choice presented by the trolley car dilemma is often considered a moral absolute because the driver is confronted with two choices, both of which are largely out of their direct control in terms of the initial setup. Letting the car kill five people or moving to another track and sacrificing the life of one instead of five is a morally acceptable choice and justifiable by law. This scenario forces a decision between two unavoidable negative outcomes, where the action taken aims to minimize overall harm.
The Fat Man and The Healthy Patient: Moral Choices and Consent
In the second dilemma, we face a distinct moral choice. Pushing the fat man over the bridge is morally unacceptable because we are not in charge of the situation in the same way. The circumstances are different; it is not our choice to sacrifice the life of another human being without his consent and free will. Nevertheless, if the fat man decided to jump and asked us to give him a hand to save the lives of the five people, now this would be a heroic act. However, I would ask him to sign a consent form first or I would videotape his consent and act to protect myself.
The third dilemma presented here is similar to the second dilemma of the fat man. We are facing the same moral choice. If I am the only doctor at the emergency department, to save the lives of five people who need a vital organ transplantation operation, I will not take the life of the sleeping, healthy man to justify saving the lives of the five people. That would be considered murder; besides, this act violates the right to life of this innocent man. This bioethical choice to kill a healthy man or someone on death row is always wrong to kill humans to justify the end, because we cannot remove a healthy vital organ from a dead person.
The Intersection of Law and Morality
What is legally acceptable is not always morally acceptable. We will always be confronted with similar choices, but we must keep in mind to use the natural law that is written in the human heart to help guide our moral choices, and the law of the land that helps us respect the rights to life of others.
Toronto March for Life 2025
My participation in the March for Life on May 10th, 2025, and your renewed commitment to defending life:
Standing for Life: A Renewed Commitment at the March for Life 2025
The air on May 10th, 2025, was charged with purpose and conviction as 400 people gathered for the annual March for Life. Among them was I, joining a powerful collective voice dedicated to defending the sanctity of human life from the moment of conception to natural death. My participation in this year’s march served not only as a continuation of my long-held beliefs but also as a profound renewal of my commitment to this vital cause.
Being present amongst such a diverse group of individuals – families with young children, students, seniors, people from all walks of life – was deeply inspiring. Each person carried their own story, their own reasons for standing in solidarity, yet we were all united by a fundamental conviction: that every human life possesses inherent dignity and deserves protection. The energy of the crowd, the heartfelt conversations shared, and the unwavering commitment to a just and compassionate society created an atmosphere of hope and determination.
As we walked, signs held high, voices raised in peaceful advocacy, I was reminded of the ongoing importance of this movement. The legal and societal battles surrounding the protection of the unborn, the vulnerable, and the elderly continue, demanding our unwavering attention and action. My presence at the March for Life was a tangible expression of my belief that silence is not an option when fundamental human rights are at stake.
This experience has only strengthened my resolve to be a consistent and vocal advocate for life at all stages. My commitment extends beyond a single day of marching. It encompasses a dedication to:
* Educating myself and others on the scientific, ethical, and societal dimensions of the life issue.
* Supporting organizations and initiatives that provide resources and care for pregnant individuals, new parents, and those facing end-of-life challenges.
* Engaging in respectful dialogue with those holding differing views, striving to build understanding and common ground.
* Advocating for policies and legislation that protect the most vulnerable members of our society.
The March for Life 2024 was not just an event; it was a reaffirmation. It was a powerful reminder that the defense of life is a continuous journey, one that requires perseverance, compassion, and a steadfast belief in the inherent worth of every human being. I leave this experience with a renewed sense of purpose, ready to continue the vital work of championing life, from conception to the natural end.
