Question Database: Ethics
Utilitarianism
TROLLEY or THE RUNAWAY TRAIN
You are standing by the railway track, with a lever, which will divert the trolley onto a different track.
A trolley is coming.
Currently, the trolley is directed to head down a track where there are five people.
The other track has only one person on it.
OPINION POLL
Is it permissible to divert the trolley?
A. Yes, it is permissible.
B. No, it is not permissible.
Two principles:
SANCTITY OF LIFE: It is always wrong knowingly to kill an innocent person.
BEST CONSEQUENCES: One ought to act so as to bring about the best achievable outcome.
(1) What does SOL recommend we do in TROLLEY?
A. According to SOL, it is permissible to divert the trolley.
B. According to SOL, it is not permissible to divert the trolley.
(2) What does BC recommend we do?
A. According to BC, it is permissible to divert the trolley.
B. According to BC, it is not permissible to divert the trolley.
Answer: (1) B (2) A
Topic:
Utilitarianism, sanctity of life, trolley
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
SPARE-PARTS SURGEON or TRANSPLANT
Five patients in need of transplants in order to save their life.
One patient has five healthy organs, which could be used to save the five.
The surgeon can kill the one such that no one knows, and such that the five others are saved.
May the surgeon kill one to save the five?
(1) What does the SOL principle say?
A. Yes, it is permissible.
B. No, it is not permissible.
(2) What does BC say?
A. Yes, it is permissible.
B. No, it is not permissible.
Answer: (1) B, (2) A
Topic:
Utilitarianism, sancity of life, transplant
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Notes:
OPINION POLL:
Which of these outcomes is worse?
A. Five people contract a fatal disease that can only be treated at great cost and with difficulty. They are not treated, and die of it within a year.
B. A driver carelessly runs over a pedestrian. The pedestrian dies.
C. Neither: they are equally bad.
Notes:
Suppose an all powerful being asks you to choose which of these outcomes to bring about at some point in the future? Which one would you think is the worse possible outcome?
Most people will tend to answer A. But now try this one:
Which of these outcomes is worse?
A. Five people contract a fatal disease that can only be treated at great cost and with difficulty. They are not treated, and die of it within a year.
B. A person murders a completely innocent stranger. The murderer feels no guilt, but never re-offends.
C. Neither: they are equally bad.
Many (though perhaps not most) people will now think that B (murder) is worst.
However, many people will also say that the BC entails that the surgeon in TRANSPLANT should go ahead and murder the patient (see the previous question). But if you think that murder is a WORSE outcome than 5 people dying of a disease, then you ought to say that the BC principle entails that the surgeon should not go ahead. This illustrates the need to get clearer about what makes consequences (outcomes) good or bad. (eg. preference vs. classical utilitarianism).
Topic:
Utilitarianism, intuitions
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy
Suppose all citizens of Australia have a strong preference for the conservation of old-growth forests. Moreover, believing that such forests are being conserved makes people happy. The government is considering two policies:
I. Conserve old-growth forests.
II. Log old-growth forests and perpetrate a widespread fraud to make people believe the forests have been conserved.
At least in the short term, which policy would maximize utility,
(1) according to a preference utilitarian?
(2) according to a classical utilitarian?
A. I.
B. II.
C. The policies are equally utility-maximizing.
Answer: (1) A (2) C
Topic:
Utilitarianism, preference, classical
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
Believing that your preferences have been satisfied is not the same as actually having them satisfied.
TRANSPLANT
Five patients in need of transplants in order to save their life.
One patient has five healthy organs, which could be used to save the five.
The surgeon can kill the one such that no one knows, and such that the five others are saved.
According to a classical utilitarian, which of the following will result in the better outcome?
A. The surgeon proceeds in TRANSPLANT.
B. The surgeon does not proceed in TRANSPLANT.
C. The two options are equally good/bad.
Answer: A
Topic:
Utilitarianism, preference, classical, transplant
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
What do we mean by saying that killing is intrinsically bad?
I. That killing is bad, independently of the consequences
II. That life is intrinsically valuable
III. That the Sanctity of Life (SOL) principle is true
A. I only
B. I and II only
C. II and III only
D. I and II and III
Answer: A
Topic:
Utilitarianism, intrinsic value
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
The Sanctity of Life Principle mentioned in this question is:
SANCTITY OF LIFE: It is always wrong knowingly to kill an innocent person.
Notes from lecture:
Many of us think that killing is typically bad (or wrong), independently of its consequences. That is, we think killing is, typically, intrinsically bad. This might partly explain why many of us think it is wrong to proceed in TRANSPLANT. For the utilitarian, the goodness or badness of something always depends on consequences. Indeed, for the utilitarian, while most killings will be bad, some will be positively good, because they have overall positive consequences. Thus the utilitarian cannot endorse the idea that killing is intrinsically bad.
Which of the following is true, according to utilitarianism?
I. Killings are only worse than other deaths to the extent that they have worse consequences.
II. The badness of a killing can be completely outweighed by other consequences.
A. I only
B. II only
C. I and II
D. Neither
Answer: C
Topic:
Utilitarianism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
A utilitarian is committed to maximizing utility.
Two accounts of maximizing: total view and average view.
TOTAL VIEW
Make the total amount of utility, in the total history of the cosmos, the largest it can possibly be.
AVERAGE VIEW
Make the average amount of utility per living creature as high as it can be.
Two scenarios, which is better, according to total view?
A. 1 billion lives. Average lifespan is 35 years. Average amount of utility per life is 5 units.
B. 1,000 lives. Average lifespan is 70 years. Average amount of utility per life is 5,000 units.
C. The two are equally good.
Answer: A
Topic:
utilitarianism, total, average, prior existence
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
1 billion = 1000 million.
PRIOR EXISTENCE
Consider only the lives that already exist, plus those that are bound to come about independently of what I do. Maximize the utility in those lives.
What is the sort of reasoning being employed by a utilitarian who thinks as follows:
While I was away on holiday, I forgot to ask anyone to look after my fish and it died. But no matter: I will get even more fish next time, and ensure that they live very happy lives. That will to some extent make up for it.
A. Total.
B. Some form of prior existence.
C. Inconclusive.
Answer: A
Topic:
utilitarianism, total, average, prior existence
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
What is the sort of reasoning being employed by a utilitarian who thinks as follows:
Looking after my pet fish is proving very difficult, because I am allergic to fish. I now think that the cost to me is greater than the benefit I can bring to it. Therefore I think I will have to let my fish die as painlessly as possible, of course.
A. Total.
B. Some form of prior existence.
C. Inconclusive.
Answer: C
Topic:
utilitarianism, total, average, prior existence
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
Which of the following statements is correct about the pref utilitarian attempt to explain the wrongness of proceeding in TRANSPLANT:
I. The preference of the healthy patient not to be killed is of the greatest importance in the explanation of why it is wrong to proceed.
II. Whether or not it is right for the surgeon to proceed depends largely on whether or not society cares about the idea of the surgeon killing the one patient.
A. I only.
B. II only.
C. I and II.
D. Neither.
Answer: B
Topic:
preference utilitarianism
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
From the lecture:
The preference utilitarian explanation puts too much emphasis on the wrong things. What about the wrong done to the one healthy patient?
NASTY SOCIETY TRANSPLANT
Healthy individual is member of racial minority.
Society is viciously racist doesn't care if this patient is killed.
Five patients are also committed racists think it would be a good thing to take the organs.
In such a scenario, it seems the preference utilitarian must admit it is right to proceed!
Thomson on mutual advantage
Suppose a group of six people have been kidnapped by terrorists. The police can rescue five of the hostages, using a carefully placed explosive which will kill all of the terrorists plus one unlucky hostage, who happens to be standing quite close to the bomb target. If the police do not act it is extremely likely that all the hostages will be killed.
(1) Is it now to the advantage of each hostage that the police proceed?
A. Yes
B. No
(2) In your opinion: is it permissible for the police to proceed?
A. Yes
B. No
(3) Was there a time when it was to the advantage of all hostages that the police proceed?
A. Yes
B. No
(4) Would Thomson say that it is permissible to proceed?
A. Yes
B. No
Answer: (1) B (3) A (4) A
Topic:
Course Level:
First year, intro. to philosophy.
Notes:
Reference:
Context from lecture:
The difference between Trolley and Transplant:
It is in all of our interests, in a special sort of way, that people kill one to save five in TROLLEY cases. It is not in all of our interests in any similar way, that people kill one to save five in TRANSPLANT cases. We need to get clear on this special way in which it is in everyone's interests.
Suppose that all six people in the TROLLEY problem are track-workers, and that it is random who will work alone. Would it be to your advantage if we later adopted a kill one to save five policy in Trolley-type cases?
Everyone should say yes.
This is something of a "magic moment'. It is a time when people would unanimously agree to a later killing policy, even if that led to the killing of themselves.
Roughly, Thomson is saying that whenever there is such a magic moment, that is enough to justify a later killing.
An interesting feature of this account is that later, people will cease to give the policy unanimous endorsement.
The answer to (1) is B because there is one hostage who will die if the police act. So it is not to HER advanatge that the police act, so it is not (at the point in time) to the advanatge of all the hostages.