I can’t side with utilitarianism for the example of killing a healthy person to harvest organs for multiple dying patients.
That’s because utilitarianism has a silent other half to the problem, which is something like confidence.
Can you judge the value of one life against another? Can you do it with accurate assessment of your own perception? How much harm is introduced to the equation if you’re wrong? How likely are you wrong?
Killing one healthy person to save 5 others doesn’t meet the utilitarian standard because you’re destroying one innocent life for parts. Parts that could maybe save others… But you can put a price on organs. You can’t undo the harm of killing someone
In fact, even considering it isn’t utilitarian. The time and energy spent on weighing the value of a life vs the value of the meat should be spent on looking for solutions
Even if there is no other solution no human can truly know that…
But sometimes the numbers do become statistics. Like the trolley problem… There is a very predictable result, if you knew of a way to stop the trolley there’s no need for considering it, and you have to make a snap decision. You have to weigh their lives against each other, knowing you have limited knowledge
But the more people on one set of tracks, the easier that math becomes. There’s no line - it’s all subjective. They’re not numbers, they’re people… But the bigger the number disparity, the easier it is to answer the question
And pulling the lever is competence check too. How sure are you that you understand the situation properly? Because maybe everything is fine, and you’re about to get someone killed out of your own stupidity
And to bring it all home… One life sure as hell isn’t worth the suffering and death of tens of millions. That’s easy math.
But is the situation that simple? Would the killing of one actually save millions? I sure as hell don’t know. It’s very situational
So if someone else pulls the lever I think it’s perfectly ethical to support them, hoping that their judgement is correct, while also not being confident enough to ever pull the lever yourself
If doctors regularly harvest healthy people’s organs nobody goes to the doctor. The families of the harvested regularly kill themselves, recipients, and doctors, and sometimes go on mass shooting sprees. Everyone lives in fear. Nobody on earth would want to live in such a community so all the best and most mobile folks leave. Others organize against it and can only be suppressed by a fascist dystopia.
It’s only actually a dilemma when considered in absolute isolation. Its against utility to harvest the organs in the sense that the system required to effect it is a massive negative.
That’s because utilitarianism has a silent other half to the problem, which is something like confidence.
Can you judge the value of one life against another? Can you do it with accurate assessment of your own perception? How much harm is introduced to the equation if you’re wrong? How likely are you wrong?
Killing one healthy person to save 5 others doesn’t meet the utilitarian standard because you’re destroying one innocent life for parts. Parts that could maybe save others… But you can put a price on organs. You can’t undo the harm of killing someone
In fact, even considering it isn’t utilitarian. The time and energy spent on weighing the value of a life vs the value of the meat should be spent on looking for solutions
Even if there is no other solution no human can truly know that…
But sometimes the numbers do become statistics. Like the trolley problem… There is a very predictable result, if you knew of a way to stop the trolley there’s no need for considering it, and you have to make a snap decision. You have to weigh their lives against each other, knowing you have limited knowledge
But the more people on one set of tracks, the easier that math becomes. There’s no line - it’s all subjective. They’re not numbers, they’re people… But the bigger the number disparity, the easier it is to answer the question
And pulling the lever is competence check too. How sure are you that you understand the situation properly? Because maybe everything is fine, and you’re about to get someone killed out of your own stupidity
And to bring it all home… One life sure as hell isn’t worth the suffering and death of tens of millions. That’s easy math.
But is the situation that simple? Would the killing of one actually save millions? I sure as hell don’t know. It’s very situational
So if someone else pulls the lever I think it’s perfectly ethical to support them, hoping that their judgement is correct, while also not being confident enough to ever pull the lever yourself
If doctors regularly harvest healthy people’s organs nobody goes to the doctor. The families of the harvested regularly kill themselves, recipients, and doctors, and sometimes go on mass shooting sprees. Everyone lives in fear. Nobody on earth would want to live in such a community so all the best and most mobile folks leave. Others organize against it and can only be suppressed by a fascist dystopia.
It’s only actually a dilemma when considered in absolute isolation. Its against utility to harvest the organs in the sense that the system required to effect it is a massive negative.