Happiness At A Maximum?
Now I know not all of us are on a pre-med track (I certainly am not), but stick with me here. Imagine you are a renowned doctor. Your surgeries have a 100% success rate—anything you set out to do will work. One day there is a terrible pile-up off of a local highway; five people, each hours within the edge of their lives, are rushed to the ER. They each need different organs transplanted, or they will die. One needs a heart; another many gallons of blood, one a liver, and the last two each need opposite lungs.
There aren’t available organs in stock. It’s been an hour on life support and it’s looking like none of the five are going to make it, when suddenly a healthy young man walks through the door. His blood type and anti-bodies match each person perfectly. He is their only hope—he has to die in order to save the five. Each person is able to receive the body part they need from him, and you, as a world-class surgeon, are the only person who can successfully pull off the surgery. Do you forcibly kill the man (assuming current laws are not in effect), saving five? Or do you let him live, but let those five victims perish?
Cold, Calculating Utilitarianism
This is the utilitarian dilemma: the right action to take in this situation is the one that maximizes happiness—in this case, killing the one man and saving the five. In a utilitarian viewpoint, the evils of taking one person’s life are offset by the benefit of saving the car crash victims. Intentions, and actions taken to get to an endpoint, play no role in a utilitarian’s thought process. Morality is quantitative to the utilitarian. The net amount of good is the main focus of any utilitarian train of thought. The doctor in our scenario may perform an unspeakable act—killing the man, robbing him of his right to live. But in the same breath, he turns around and grants five others that same right; and, as the math majors among us know, five is greater than one.
Paradoxically, while trying to maximize a happiness output, utilitarianism is often regarded as cold and uncaring of human life. People in utilitarian scenarios seem to be stripped of their humanity, more a means to an end or a number. Take the healthy man in the above scenario. His own life, memories, and happiness is not taken into account. Instead, he is reduced to a number—one versus five—in an absurd contest that he is fated to lose. A utilitarian viewpoint does not concern the deeper philosophical questions regarding right to life or the concept of “playing God.” Yes, those five people from the car crash would be saved. But at what cost? What gives them the right to exist over the man who wondered in, or even vice-versa? Whose life has more “merit?”
At the same time, utilitarianism, while cruel, can have its merits. I am sure you are at least familiar with the “bitten by a zombie” trope. If not, let me explain briefly: a member of your party in the zombie apocalypse has been bitten. There is an 80% chance that the virus will take hold and transform them into a zombie, and a 20% chance they will be fine. You debate on whether to kill them or let them live. A utilitarian would do what a softer person could not and kill them before they could become a zombie. To them, the choice is obvious. It does more good to stop a zombie from infecting other members of the group. They would only be killing one person, as opposed (possibly) to the disastrous collateral damage (consequence) if the virus took hold. Utilitarianism, while cold, can be useful in the long run.
Embrace It Or Not?
I certainly cannot tell you what to think. Utilitarianism is a divisive school of thought to be sure. But it is not the only way to see and approach the world—and as this blog continues, so will its viewpoints. Hopefully, your own scope of reference will widen as you consider different ways to handle moral dilemmas. In the meantime, I’m going to go get certified to be a surgeon. Ciao.
I love you took a complex topic and made it easy it to understand. Utilitarianism is such an interest topic to read about, so I look forward to reading more!
1. The blog discusses the utilitarian problem of choosing to save the few or the many. It’s interesting to see how you opened up with the medical dilemma, rather than the classic train dilemma that we have heard all too often. I think you did a fantastic job of explaining the utilitarian point of view, while also stating that it’s not your job to tell your audience what to believe.
2. I thought the article was interesting because of the examples you used. Examples draw the audience’s attention in, and makes them want to read more to see how the example ends. I also loved the format of the post, because while it was informational, there wasn’t too much scientific jargon that would be difficult for the audience to understand (those who aren’t a part of the scientific community).
3. I think it would be interesting if you wait to tell the audience the outcome of the next utilitarian dilemma, so that they can try to guess what it would be, while reading to learn more about it.
Other than that, loved your passion blog, and how you tied the medial idea together at the end!