Ethical dilemmas have always been very difficult for people who have to make a moral decision. This sort of dilemma predetermines that a person has to choose between bringing a big good and making a small moral crime. The majority of people will choose to bring little harm for the bigger better (Lanteri, Chelini & Rizzello, 2008). However, when people need to make a moral decision, where one of their dear people is involved, they act absolutely in a different manner. The following situation introduces the possible answer for a question why people act according to logic and rational thinking in some cases and why they make an opposite decision in other situations (Bleske-Rechek, Nelson, Baker, Remiker & Brandt, 2010).
If I had to choose between the life of one child and many, I would choose to save the majority of children. This decision is based more on the rationalism and utilitarianism theory which predetermines that the goods for the majority are better than the good only for a few people. Despite the fact that I have to choose who will live and die, I have to sacrifice the life of one person in order to save more lives. One may argue this dissection because it contradicts to laissez-faire principle which means that one should not interfere and let the things go their own way. Nevertheless, my moralistic views cannot agree with this principle because if I sacrifice only one life, it will bring less damage, whether I let to die five other children. I believe that my decision is also influenced by the fact that a person is a social creature; it means that he/she takes a decision that will bring more benefits to the majority. Hence, if one needs to take a decision that will bring harm anyway, he/she will try to reduce the size of this harm. The same thing happens when one needs to choose the little evil in order to bring the bigger good.
Nevertheless, the principle of utilitarianism works only in case if I none of these children is my son or daughter. Hence, if I have to choose between life of my son or daughter and the lives of five strange children, I will choose my son or daughter. The reason of this decision is quite banal because this child is very dear to me. Moreover, I do not need to make a decision in this case at all because I will let the train goes its way. According to this fact, this decision is not as difficult as a previous one because, in fact, I do not have to make any choice and let the things be as they are. If I do nothing, I will save my son or daughter; hence, one cannot guilt me in a wrong decision because I did not make it.
However, if none of these children were dear for me and I had to choose between one healthy child and five terminally diagnosed, I will choose one healthy child. Five children will die anywhere in the nearest future; thus, they are doomed to die, and, unfortunately, they will not have an opportunity for a happy and long life. On the other hand, there is a healthy child who can live a long life and make many achievements. Hence, if I choose to save five children, none of these six children will live till the adult age. Nevertheless, if I choose only child, then I save at least one life. According to this fact, this choice is more rational and it brings more good for the society. Hence, if I have to choose between little good or not good at all, I will choose to bring at least something good than nothing.
As a conclusion, it can be said that the results of ethical dilemma depend much on the secondary factors, such as whether this decision influences a person who makes this decision or one of his/her relatives. The introduced situation showed that the good for the majority is the social priority, but only in those cases when it does not contradict to the personal good. Thus, the personal moral principles have more chances to overcome the general social principles.