Moral Theories - Scenario 1

View the full Interactive Tutorial at:
http://www.phgfoundation.org/tutorials/moral.theories/3.html

Consider the following scenario: A doctor is working in the Accident and Emergency Department of a hospital. A homeless man is brought in with brain damage sustained in a road traffic accident. The doctor recognises him; the man has no family and is in reasonable physical, if not mental, health. The doctor knows there is still time to save the mans life. He also knows that if he does not start treatment, the man will suffer brain death and his organs could possibly be used to improve the quality of or even save several other peoples lives. Assuming there is no penalty associated with either choice, what would a strict utilitarian do? * Save the mans life * Contact the transplant team to ready them to harvest any available organs

The doctor would allow the man to die and try to use his organs to save as many people as possible. This would bring the greatest happiness to the greatest number of people.

Category:

Science & Technology

Tags:

• phgfoundation
• interactive
• tutorials
• moral
• theories

[CelticKraut]

This is why so many people are scared to put organ donor on their licenses.

[n0fa1th]

Too answer just the question...They would harvest the organs. That is granted there are no hidden variables and they are a strict utilitarian. That said, the question has nothing to do with real life; there are always hidden variables and nobody's a strict utilitarian.

[oneoctavelow]

First in, first served :-) save the man's life of course. If a doctor's job is indeed to save lives then he/she must save the homeless' man life. He gets to keep his organs, he'll need them before anyone else. A utilitarian will no sought recognize that no transplants would be needed :-)

[dancthegr]

@n0fa1and no one is a strict absolutist either

[esiosan]

Consider that the homeless man is likely a drunk and/or drug-addict and his organs may not be healthy enough to help anyone out :)

[godlessyurifan]

This is why I'm not a utilitarian. That this kind of dillemma would even arise for a utilitarian shows that the philosophy does not have a fundamental concern for trust and trustworthiness. This "morality" encourages behavior that creates distrust when morality should be geared towards creating and sustaining trust.

[AntiMatterWave]

@sirbestnameever you're missing my point, I'm saying that while multiple lives is more valuable than 1 the circumstances can make that irrelevant. Like for example thousands of innocents dying to save millions, I think that if even one innocent dies then it's wrong, however if you had to choose, kill 1 person or kill a billion I'd think and hope you'd choose 1 person because then the overall loss is 999,999,999 less which I'd hope you'll agree, though it isn't good, is better

[sirbestnameever]

@AntiMatterWave why is the larger amount of lives more valuable than 1? When the americans dropped the atomic boom on japan they killed thousands of innocents to save millions, could you tell those deformed broken people that there lives were forcefully destroyed because it would of saved more people.

[AntiMatterWave]

@sirbestnameever no it isn't, it's a billion times less equal. However I'd save him aswell, just for different reasons

[AntiMatterWave]

It's kind f irrelevant since (at least to my knowledge) they aren't allowed to let him die anyway

[dbodow]

Big hidden variable: If it is obligatory to harvest the organs, then a patient considering seeking medical attention now faces a risk that his organs will be donated rather than receiving medical treatment. The expected reduction in welfare of those no longer seeking medical attention would surely outweigh the benefit to those who get the man's organs.

However, assuming there was no such consequence, they should obviously harvest the organs.

[wolfson109]

This particular scenario seems a little extreme