Question

3.) Now it gets weird. This time, trapped in the burning building are a dog and a brain-dead person. By brain-dead, I mean a person who has no mental experiences at all - no thoughts, no memories, no experiences of pain or pleasure, and who you know will not recover. So, a person biologically alive, but who will never again have mental experiences, whether or not you save him or her from the burning building. And assume that should you choose to do so, you can successfully get the person out of the building in time to save his or her life. And the poor dog, who is perfectly normal, is trapped again, and can't get out without your help. Who should be saved this time?

Answer 1

Utilitarian ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it maximizes benefit to maximum number of people and reduce any harm. This would mean that I should try to maximize utility in this instance and reduce any harm. So, I would try to save the person because saving the person would have more human connections than the dog. Whether the person would live or not, the loss would land a big blow to the family members and other acquaintances. Logically speaking, no one would mourn the death of a dog, not even other dogs, but the loss of a human being would be felt by many. Besides, human dignity of life should also be given even when one is brain dead because the person is not made up of just the physical elements but relationships, personhood and social identity.

Thank you for your question. Please rate if you like the answer.