Question

Consider the following thought experiment and examine it via the lens of utilitarianism: A

surgeon has five patients, each of whom not only are in need of a different organ but will certainly

die without a transplant. Unfortunately, there are no organs available. The next day a young

traveler stops by the doctor’s hospital for a routine checkup. During the course of the checkup, the

doctor realizes that the patient’s organs are compatible with the five patients. Should the doctor

kill the tourist and provide her organs to the five dying patients to save their lives?

a) How would the utilitarian respond to this thought experiment (note: in answering this

question, be sure to specify what kinds of considerations the utilitarian would make). [10

pts]

b) Now, further suppose that after the surgery, news of the doctor’s actions become known to

the public. How does this additional detail change the utilitarian response you articulated

above? [5 pts]

c) Because utilitarianism focuses on the value of net happiness, it inevitability places a value

on human life – i.e. those who contribute more towards maximizing happiness are worth

more (and more morally important) than those who contribute less or not all. Do you agree

that different people can be justly assigned different moral value? Why or why not? (Note:

In answering this question be sure to address how you believe we should tackle scenarios

wherein we are forced to choose one life over another). [10 pts]

Answer 1

1. Although Utilitarian Ethics suggests that an act would be considered ethical if it increases the utility or benefit to many and decrease any harm. The first condition is to maximize benefit to maximum number of people and according to that condition, the doctor can kill the tourist and transplant the organs to the five people but the second condition is to reduce harm which will not be fulfilled in this case as the tourist would be killed.
2. It won’t be accepted as an ethical act because people differ in their opinions about ethics and legally no one would be allowed to do so. Thus the doctor will not only be locked behind the bars but also would be rejected by the general public.
3. In my opinion, everyone should be treated equal no matter how much their lives are important to the society. If we start treating people differently based on their contribution to the society and treat people who contribute less in a different way, it is discrimination. This would hurt those people and keep them away from living a normal life. The harm principle would reject the idea of valuing one life over the other just because of their contribution.

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