Imagine you’re the captain of the Mallory 7, a spaceship transporting cargo across the galaxy. As you journey towards the New Lindley spaceport, you receive a distress call from another ship, the Telic 12. An explosion has occurred, and the passengers are quickly running out of oxygen. The Telic 12 is carrying 30 individuals from Earth’s poorer regions to New Lindley, where they are set to start new jobs.
Just as you prepare to help, another distress call comes in. This time, it’s from the Pareto, a luxury space cruiser that has lost a thruster and is heading towards an asteroid belt. Onboard are 20 college students in serious danger. With only enough time to save one ship, you face a difficult decision: which group should you rescue?
This scenario highlights a common ethical dilemma where resources are limited, much like deciding who should receive a scarce organ transplant or vaccine. One influential ethical framework for addressing such dilemmas is utilitarianism, developed by philosophers Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. Utilitarianism suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness.
However, defining happiness can be challenging. Some argue that happiness is about maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain, while others believe it involves fulfilling desires. In this case, saving 30 lives might seem to create more happiness than saving 20. But is it enough to consider just the number of lives?
Another factor to consider is the number of life years saved. If we assume a life expectancy of 80 years, rescuing the students, who are around 20 years old, would save 1,200 life years. In contrast, saving the workers, who are about 45 years old, would save 1,050 life years. From this perspective, saving the students might result in more overall happiness due to the longer potential life span.
If these calculations seem too impersonal, you might consider a different ethical perspective. Philosopher Derek Parfit suggests prioritizing those who are worse off. According to this view, helping disadvantaged groups is more important than aiding those who are already well-off.
In this scenario, the workers on the Telic 12 come from impoverished backgrounds and face significant hardships. In contrast, the students on the Pareto are likely more privileged, enjoying a luxury cruise. This might suggest that the workers are more deserving of rescue due to their disadvantaged status.
Alternatively, philosopher John Taurek argues that numbers shouldn’t dictate our decisions in such cases. He believes that each person deserves equal concern and respect, suggesting that the fairest way to decide is by flipping a coin. This method gives everyone an equal chance of being saved, treating all individuals equally.
While a coin flip might seem arbitrary, it ensures that no one is unfairly prioritized over others. However, this approach might leave some feeling uneasy about the randomness of the decision.
Ultimately, the decision of whom to save involves complex ethical considerations. Whether you prioritize maximizing happiness, saving life years, helping the disadvantaged, or treating everyone equally, each approach has its merits and challenges. As the captain, your choice will reflect your values and ethical beliefs, and it may leave you pondering the fairness and implications of your decision long after the crisis has passed.
Engage in a structured debate with your classmates about the utilitarian approach to the dilemma. Divide into two groups: one supporting the rescue of the Telic 12 and the other advocating for the Pareto. Use the principles of utilitarianism to argue your case, considering factors like the number of lives saved and overall happiness. This will help you understand the complexities of utilitarian ethics in real-world scenarios.
Work in pairs to calculate the total life years saved for each group, considering different life expectancy scenarios. Discuss how these calculations might influence your decision and whether they align with utilitarian principles. This activity will enhance your quantitative reasoning skills and deepen your understanding of how life years factor into ethical decision-making.
Participate in a role-playing exercise where you assume the roles of different stakeholders, such as the workers on the Telic 12, the students on the Pareto, and the captain of the Mallory 7. Discuss and negotiate who should be rescued, focusing on the ethical perspective of prioritizing the disadvantaged. This will help you empathize with different viewpoints and explore the moral implications of your choices.
Join a philosophical discussion group to explore John Taurek’s argument for equal consideration. Debate whether flipping a coin is a fair method for making such critical decisions. Consider the ethical implications of randomness and equality in life-and-death situations. This activity will encourage critical thinking and philosophical inquiry.
Write a reflective essay on which group you would choose to save and why. Incorporate the ethical theories discussed in the article, such as utilitarianism, prioritizing the disadvantaged, and equal consideration. Reflect on how these theories align with your personal values and beliefs. This exercise will help you articulate your ethical stance and develop your writing skills.
You are the captain of the Mallory 7, an interstellar cargo transport. On your way to the New Lindley spaceport, you receive a distress call. There’s been an explosion on the Telic 12, and its passengers are running out of oxygen. As you set a course to intercept, you check the Telic 12’s manifest. It’s currently transporting 30 individuals from some of Earth’s poorer districts to the labor center on New Lindley, where they’ll be assigned jobs on the spaceport.
However, as you approach the Telic 12, you receive a second distress call. A luxury space cruiser called the Pareto has lost a thruster, sending them careening towards an asteroid belt. Without your help, the 20 college students aboard the Pareto are in grave danger. With only enough time to save one ship, which one should you choose?
This dilemma exemplifies a broader class of problems where a life-saving resource—such as a donated organ or vaccine—is scarce. There are many schools of thought on how to approach these problems, and one of the most influential is utilitarianism, an ethical view first systematically developed by Jeremy Bentham and John Stuart Mill. In this view, you should choose the action that promises the greatest sum of happiness.
However, defining and measuring happiness is complex. For instance, hedonists might argue that a happy life contains the most pleasure and the least pain, while others might say it’s a life where desires are most fulfilled. Regardless of how happiness is defined, many would agree that saving 30 lives has the potential to generate more happiness than saving 20.
But is it sufficient to consider only the number of lives saved? Should you also factor in how many life years would be saved? Assuming a life expectancy of 80, saving the lives of the students, with an average age of 20, saves 1,200 life years, while saving the workers, with an average age of 45, saves 1,050. All things being equal, a longer life should promise a greater sum of happiness than a shorter one. Thus, saving the smaller ship might actually have the potential to generate the most happiness.
If these calculations feel a bit cold, you may want to consider a different approach. The philosopher Derek Parfit argues that we should give priority to those who are worse off, as benefits to disadvantaged groups matter more than equivalent benefits to the well-off. In this view, it’s more urgent to help those whose basic needs aren’t met, even if they’re harder to assist, than those who are flourishing.
However, determining which group is truly worse off can become complicated. In this scenario, Earth is still facing significant inequalities in wealth and opportunity. Those able to afford a vacation on New Lindley and transport on a luxury cruiser are likely among the most well-off people on the planet. The workers, in contrast, are among the most disadvantaged, traveling away from home for months at a time to perform service work. With fewer resources and opportunities, it’s likely they’ve experienced more hardship in their lives than the vacationers, so perhaps they’re more deserving of rescue?
On the other hand, the students have experienced less life overall—so perhaps they’re worse off? Or maybe none of these variables should influence our decision. The philosopher John Taurek famously argued that in these types of cases, the numbers don’t count. Each person deserves equal concern and respect, so the best way to decide which passengers to save is to flip a coin. While this might seem arbitrary at first, this approach treats all parties equally, giving each individual an equal chance of being rescued.
Could any passenger argue that they’re being treated unfairly by a coin flip? It’s tough to say. However, how they—and you—feel about the result may present another dilemma altogether.
Utilitarianism – A philosophical theory that suggests that the best action is the one that maximizes overall happiness or utility. – In his essay, John argued that utilitarianism provides a practical framework for evaluating the moral implications of public policies.
Happiness – A state of well-being and contentment, often considered a central goal in various philosophical traditions. – The philosopher’s lecture focused on how different ethical theories define and prioritize happiness in the context of human life.
Life – The existence of an individual human being or animal, often examined in philosophy to understand its meaning and purpose. – The seminar explored existentialist perspectives on the meaning of life and how individuals can find purpose in a seemingly indifferent universe.
Disadvantaged – Lacking in the basic resources or conditions believed to be necessary for an equal position in society, often discussed in ethical debates about justice and equality. – The philosopher emphasized the moral obligation to support disadvantaged groups to promote social justice and equity.
Ethics – The branch of philosophy that deals with questions of morality, including what is right and wrong, good and bad. – The course on ethics challenged students to critically analyze moral dilemmas and develop reasoned arguments for their positions.
Decision – The act of making a choice or coming to a conclusion, often analyzed in philosophy to understand the processes of reasoning and judgment. – The discussion centered on how ethical theories can guide individuals in making moral decisions in complex situations.
Respect – A feeling of deep admiration for someone or something elicited by their abilities, qualities, or achievements, often considered a fundamental ethical principle. – The philosopher argued that respect for persons is a cornerstone of Kantian ethics, requiring us to treat others as ends in themselves.
Fairness – The quality of making judgments that are free from discrimination, often discussed in philosophy in relation to justice and equality. – The debate highlighted different philosophical perspectives on how fairness should be achieved in the distribution of resources.
Philosophy – The study of the fundamental nature of knowledge, reality, and existence, especially when considered as an academic discipline. – The introductory course in philosophy encouraged students to question their assumptions and explore diverse philosophical traditions.
Critical Thinking – The objective analysis and evaluation of an issue in order to form a judgment, a key skill in philosophical inquiry. – The professor emphasized the importance of critical thinking in evaluating philosophical arguments and developing coherent positions.
