Sacrificing even one human life over ten may not be ethically correct, but those can be morally correct. Rightness and wrongness of actions depends upon in what situation those actions were being performed.
If we talk about doctors performing clinical trials on humans, the army saving their nation against nasty elements, or a school bus driver saving children while sacrificing the life of an old man, this dilemma is always debatable.
Are they considered wrong in performing their duties? At a certain situation, individuals have to take moral decisions instead of ethical decisions. Morality and ethicality can be used alternatively but in reality these terms are altogether different.
This debate is about should we treat humans as a means to achieve our goal or as an end. In this essay, I will argue that it is acceptable to save thousands of people on account of the lives of ten innocent individuals which is based on the principle of Utility.
“The GOOD is that which provides for the happiness of the greatest number of people even if it results in no happiness to the agent at all”.
In this paper, I will start by giving a brief description about two different theories and their viewpoints: Deontological theory. and Classic utilitarianism theory. Then I will try to compare and contrast these two theories and their responses on this question.
This debate highlights the views of utilitarianism theory vs deontological theory. The utilitarianism theory states that moral actions are those which gives happiness to the greatest number of people.
They talk about “the consequences of actions rather than intentions behind it.” They believe that, “An action ought to be done if and only if its outcome contains a sum total of (subjective) well-being that is greater than that which is contained in the outcome of any alternative action”.
So, if killing ten innocent people can save ten thousand individuals, then this is serving the purpose of greatest good to greatest number of people.
On the contrary, the Kantian deontology states that, “we are morally obligated to act in accordance with a certain set of principles and rules regardless of outcome”. This theory judges actions based on intentions rather than the outcomes.
Therefore, according to Kantian ethics, killing even one individual is not permissible as we are bound by some moral rules which makes certain actions immoral.
The first argument that I will give in support of the claim is that saving a greater number of individuals will give more happiness than saving ten individuals. There are three reasons in support of this claim. Firstly, If we are put into such a situation, then it is our moral duty to save more lives than saving a lesser number of people.
Yes, it is possible that among those ten thousands, some of them would not be innocent but looking at the greater perspective, among ten thousands, most of them would be innocent. Subsequently, If we talk about valuing a human life, then is it not better to save more than sacrificing less?
As per the rule utilitarianism’s point of view, “Every act is evaluated according to the utility. Does it or doesn’t it produce HAPPINESS. Utilitarians must maximize HAPPINESS. They must never accept unhappiness if they can minimize it”. Therefore, between given choices, keeping more people alive, is considered as righteous action by society.
Kantian deontology argues that if we talk about valuing human lives, then it is neither justifiable to kill even one individual nor morally correct. Deontological ethics claims, “ the moral worth of an action does not lie in the effect expected from it”.
Outcome does not decide whether actions are considered as moral or immoral. Therefore, saving ten thousand people and providing the greatest good to greatest number of people does not prove that our actions are just and moral. Furthermore, they also claim that we are obligated to act as per the maxims.
“Some acts are always wrong, even if the act leads to an admirable outcome” ( Reading: ‘Universal Law’ –Immanuel Kant). That means certain actions are always morally wrong, for example, killing, lying, stealing, cheating etc. so, it is our responsibility to act accordingly whatever the outcome may be.
However, this objection does not succeed, for the following reason. Kant overlooks the situation under which certain actions are being performed. If someone has done something, then what was the situation’so, this theory does not explain the situational aspect of any action.
The second argument to support Utilitarianism theory is saving a larger group and more innocent people is a moral thing than saving a few innocent people.
To illustrate, a school bus driver faces a situation in which either he can save a school bus, full of small children, or an old man who can be killed in that accident. The moral decision will be saving small children rather than an old man.
If we look for the greater good, then it is an obvious decision to save small innocent kids who might have a bright future. On the other hand, saving an old man and risking the lives of small children is not a moral decision.
That old man has at least lived his life to the fullest. Bentham’s utilitarianism claims, “He holds that an act ought to be done if and only if it produces a greater balance of pleasure over pain than the negative act of not doing that act”.
This means that action should be produced only when it brings happiness over unhappiness to a greater number of people.
On the other hand of spectrum, Kantian ethics argues that we cannot judge human lives based on quantities. A bus driver could think of other alternatives to save that old man as well as children.
While preventing that accident, he would unintentionally killed those children, then it will not be considered as a murder unlike utilitarianism theory, where they support the notion of killng that old man will be considered as a murder.
Nevertheless, this claim can also be rejected because Kantian theory cannot answer a question that Is it just to save someone who has almost lived his life and sacrificing those small innocent kids who have just started their journey towards their bright future?
Is there a guarantee that the old man was innocent and never committed any mistake in his life?
The third argument in support of the utilitarianism theory is as follows. In current crisis situations, clinical trials on humans are going on to check whether a particular medicine can be effective or not.
If we correlate that situation with the current situation, then it is possible that during trials experimented humans can die of wrong medicine. We cannot call this action of the doctor immoral. Is it not moral that by doing so we are saving millions of individuals?
However, it is necessary to take consent from the individual on whom trials are being performed. The first principle of the Nuremberg Code clearly states, “The voluntary consent of the human subject is absolutely essential”.
Conversely, Kantian deontology claims the human being as having the unique capacity for rationality provides people with a framework of rational rules that guide and prevent certain actions and are independent of personal intentions and desires.
In other words, humans are rational beings and they are capable of taking moral decisions which do not have a tint of selfishness. So according to Kant, if we kill humans during clinical trials, we have a selfish desire behind it. This makes such actions immoral.
However, Kant’s theory could not answer that if a person who is already dying, gives permission for clinical trials even after knowing about the consequences, even that action is wrong?
Science is all about taking risks and understanding more. If those 10 innocent individuals would not have been killed then maybe there would be no developments in medical science. There was a time when cancer was incurable and now due to tests and trials we are saving thousands of individuals.
The fourth argument regarding this dilemma is If killing even 1 person is wrong then aborting a fetus with abnormalities is also wrong. Utilitarian theory argues that the greatest good is giving happiness to the greatest number of people.
In this case, if a doctor tells a pregnant lady that the fetus is having abnormalities and advises her to abort the child. Then this action will not be considered as immoral. Looking at the bigger perspective, the birth of that child will give more pain than happiness and will affect more lives.
That child will have to suffer throughout his life. There is no guarantee that a child will live a normal life. secondly, parents will get affected. So, abortion is the correct decision to save three lives.
On the other hand Kant opposes this thought by arguing that aborting a fetus means killing a person. It might be possible that in future, the doctor gets the cure for his abnormality. Killing a fetus will raise questions on many individuals. Firstly, parents who are killing a life, who is innocent.
It is just unfortunate that he had that abnormality. Secondly, nurses and doctors, who are equivalent to god. It is their moral duty to save every individual.
As Kant argues, “ I would express thus Duty is the necessity of acting from respect for the law. I may have inclination for an object as the effect of my proposed action, but I cannot have respect for it, just for this reason, that it is an effect and not an energy of will”.
They should ask themselves whether their action is violating the laws of humanity? If yes then their actions are not considered moral.
