There are loads of stock dilemmas used to illustrate the conflict between individual freedom and the greatest good for the greatest number. Here's one, derived from Peter Singer's version:
Quote:
You are visiting a friend in hospital. Accidentally, you take a wrong turning and go to the transplant ward. There is one person needing a heart, two people in need of kidneys, and someone else who needs a liver. They will all die unless they get transplants soon. (Also there are a couple of people in need of corneas, skins grafts and other odds and ends.)
The surgeon looks at you. Why shouldn't he knock you on the head and harvest your organs? One life is lost. Four lives are saved (plus the odds and ends as incidental benefits). So there might be a net gain of three lives.
|
Most of us wouldn't like a society where we could be sacrificed in this way. On the other hand, most of us wouldn't like a society run on purely utilitarian considerations. So there is a problem about where lines should be drawn in each area.