Utilitarian Thought Experiment?

Question

Two men are trapped in a room for a set period of time. After that time, they will be released. There is only enough food and water in the room for one man to survive. If they share, both will die. What is the most utilitarian thing for them to do? (That is, what will result in the maximum to the maximum number of people?)

Answer 1

I take it that the thought experiment is designed to prevent escape or some other means of sustaining both men. If that be the case, then the utilitarian argument would be to decide which one with have the food and water and which will not survive.

How the choice takes place is a difficult one, but I presume that a utilitarian application would be used. A great scientist that is working on cures for the common cold would be an obvious decision over a homeless person. However, life seldom can be decided by some inherent cost-benefit analysis. Despite all the actuarial tables out there, a person's life is measured in ways that defy mere statistics.

Presuming that the two men are left alone to decide, then I doubt that it will come to a utilitarian decision, but more of a social Darwinism at work. Simply put, whoever has the better combination of strength, wits, and the will to survive will get the food.

Answer 2

The maximum good for the maximum number of people, here the maximum good being surviving and the maximum number of people being one person. A solitary figure out of two inclines the utility of the circumstance to a balance of 50/50. Therefore, utilitarianism is not favored or is inapplicable.

In such a situation, it would be best if the ethics of evolution or social darwinism came up with a solution. Such as, if one man is to survive, and the other is to empathize or feel altruistic towards the one who is to survive, then the one who survives should be of a strength that is fit enough to survive, at the expense of the other.

Or maybe they should take matters into their own hands and clobber one another to see who survives.

Answer 3

The most utilitarian thing is for them to agree to choose one of them to survive and the other to die, perhaps by some random process giving each of them an equal chance. If, however, one of them is much older or one sicker, than the utilitarian thing to do is to choose voluntarily the one who will maximize life.

Having said that, however, most ethical systems would adopt the deontological position that neither one can kill the other nor can one voluntarily commit suicide. The exception to this (i.e. not suicide ) is when one party voluntarily sacrifices herself for the other e.g. a parent for a child.

Answer 4

It is impossible to amend this situation. You have presented one of the many problems that the Utilitarian philosophy has.
You thought experiment proves that Utilitarianism is null and void.

Answer 5

asians can not examine minds. this is the main ridiculous element i've got seen on right here. I had a touch asian female pal while i replaced right into a whippersnapper, and he or she'd have run screaming for the hills from the 2d I laid eyes on her if she would have examine my recommendations. i additionally will upload that asians have not got expressionless faces, farrr some distance from it. I digress. only needed to throw that obtainable, according to a rambling non answer to a "jonny" question I observed a at a similar time as back. very nicely. i'm carried out.

Answer 6

Refuse to accept the conditions laid down by the oppressors! If you accept the conditions laid out you will end up letting them destroy your spirit. Fight them! Share the food, and work together to change the rules. If you loose you have lost your body, but saved your souls!

Answer 7

God might intervene and create a new scenario.

Answer 8

what is wrong with how you think now,.,

it is on a loop+=-(