If you've taken any ethics classes, you've probably heard it before -- Utilitarianism "fails" when this thing we call "justice" intervenes. Is justice really more important than saving, say, 5 other people's lives? Is it really wrong to kill 1 innocent person, and take his organs (against his will), to save 5 other people? 50 other people? 1,000 other people?
2006-07-10 10:00:13 · 13 answers · asked by Ekdar 1 in Arts & Humanities ➔ Philosophy
Let's assume that saving the 5 (or 50 or 1,000) lives WOULD, in fact, maximize happiness. (Perhaps this is a one-time thing and done in private for example....we can imagine hypothetical scenarios that would make this the case.)
2006-07-10 10:30:11 · update #1
Yes, it's wrong. The ends do not always justify the means.
2006-07-10 10:14:12 · answer #1 · answered by Girasol 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
If we were mere animals then no. But since we are IMHO human creations made by God then no. If he wants those lives saved then they will be. There are better things after this life so dying isn't the worst thing that could happen to a person. Killing to prolong lives - that is wrong. Who are we to decide if the life we take is worth more or less than the 5 he or she would save? We are nothing in that scenario. It is an excuse for the powerful to prolong their lives at the expense of the poor and expendable.
So my answer to your question is - yes it is wrong to kill someone to save another's life.
2006-07-10 10:08:48 · answer #2 · answered by melissa l 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
In order to want to save the 5 people there must be a fundamental respect for their lives. If there is a fundamental respect for their lives, there must also be a respect for the 1 person's life. Therefore, to kill the one to save the 5 you must not respect the 1. if you don't respect the 1, you can't respect the 5.
(did that make sense?)
2006-07-10 10:06:22 · answer #3 · answered by scott i 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
on condition that that is the purely element you may do and its a right away hazard on your existence yet its nonetheless not accurate and there is in simple terms about continually a extra acceptable answer in case your keen to make the attempt out and picture.ther is continuously a extra acceptable answer to invading someones privateness leaving them alive without existence ( a destiny worse then lack of existence) a punishment worse then the fires of hell,or limiting there existence so as that they could't have free-will or a strong non violent existence, or forcing them to be the position they don't desire to be and holding all of us faraway from them that they might chosen as acquaintances, killing taking a existence in besides should be a serious count to all of us even if that is by using preventing there heart or eliminating all determination and free-will and putting lower than circumstances that motives purely isolation soreness suffering and not in any respect to be the fellow they were created to be
2016-10-14 07:59:01 · answer #4 · answered by atleh 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
The utilitarian answer is not so simplistic.
If we were to harvest a person's organs to save 5 others, that precedent would devastate law and order.
So it's not worth it. No.
2006-07-10 10:21:58 · answer #5 · answered by -.- 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Murder is always wrong, no matter the ends. It is just as wrong to "harvest" an embryo that might save a million lives.
2006-07-10 10:24:06 · answer #6 · answered by rlw 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
You would first have to prove that the worth of the 5 other people's lives is greater than that first intial person, and to do something like that is impossible since all worth is relative.
2006-07-10 10:04:55 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Yes, it is wrong. Always. The end does not justify the means.
2006-07-10 11:29:16 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
yes, that is why people choose to donate their organs after they die. Killing a person for any reason is wrong.
2006-07-10 10:09:55 · answer #9 · answered by jenn 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes
2006-07-10 10:05:12 · answer #10 · answered by cricket 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋