The trolley problem is a well-known moral dilemma, with the two options of either pulling the lever or letting it be. In a similar analogy, it is questionable whether it would be ethical to kill one person to save five others. From a utilitarian perspective, it seems that the answer is simple. To maximize the number of lives saved, the single person should be sacrificed. Quantitatively, five is greater than one. Five individuals also means greater happiness; if the one person had been left to live, he and his family would have been unaffected emotionally. Meanwhile, the families and friends of five individuals—likely more than the single person would have had—would be left to mourn, stricken with emotional pain. On the other hand, saving the five people who were meant to die would give their loved ones a reason to rejoice, causing their previously negative emotions to shift to a positive one. While the single person’s family may grieve, the overall emotional net gain would be greater, further cementing the position that saving these five people would be best for the maximization of happiness.
However, these are the short-term gains. For one to be able to transfer organs, they are likely a doctor or hold some other form of medical authority. While it may seem that more lives were saved, when one considers the implications of the future, this doctor would likely be stripped of their medical license, no longer able to save lives. While four more lives were saved, how many were lost with your honor? But, it may be argued, there are a multitude of doctors, and a single one can easily be replaced. Still, it remains that a doctor—a highly respected member of society—abused their power, the jurisdiction entrusted to him by the people. With this violation, this trust would be broken, and the medical community would no longer hold this same confidence it once did. Perhaps some would be reluctant to put their lives in the hands of possible malpractitioners—in that case, the doctor’s actions would have caused more harm than help. Furthermore, such a scandal would dramatically decrease the happiness felt—not just by the family of the sacrificed individual, but the medical community, under the scrutiny of society, and even the five patients that were saved, as they would likely bear guilt over inadvertently playing a role in the person’s death. With this in mind, choosing to save five people, though seemingly a utilitarian course of action, is in reality detrimental in the long-run, and it would be better to act through inaction in order to maximize the quantity of lives saved and net balance of happiness.
This is from a utilitarian perspective, one that emphasizes quantity. What, though, about quality? Perhaps the single person whose life hangs in the balance has more potential to accomplish greatness; if the five people in question were petty criminals or murderers while the other person was a Nobel Peace Prize winner, surely allowing the five to die would be more beneficial. And beyond a systematic musing of which is more beneficial?, some would argue about the morality of such actions; many would judge intentionally killing a healthy human being to be immoral.
Comments