The Troubling Question of Utilitarianism
The seemingly simple question – is it better to save five lives or one? – becomes a complex ethical dilemma when examined through the lens of John Taurek’s controversial 1977 paper, “Should the Numbers Count?” This thought experiment, initially presented as a philosophical oddity, continues to challenge our understanding of utilitarianism, the ethical theory that actions should be judged based on their overall consequences. While the intuitive response leans towards saving the five, Taurek’s argument throws a wrench into this seemingly straightforward calculation.
Taurek’s Counterintuitive Argument
Taurek presents a scenario involving a limited supply of life-saving medication. Six individuals require the drug to survive, but one person needs the entire supply, while the other five need only a fraction each. The utilitarian approach, focused on maximizing overall well-being, suggests administering the drug to the five, resulting in a net gain of five lives. However, Taurek argues that this approach disregards the individual rights of the person requiring the entire dose. He posits that each individual has an equal claim to life, and therefore, a decision based purely on numbers is inherently unfair. This challenges the core tenet of utilitarianism, raising questions about the balance between collective good and individual rights.
The Debate’s Enduring Relevance
Taurek’s paper sparked significant debate within the philosophical community. Derek Parfit, a renowned moral philosopher, famously criticized Taurek’s arguments in his response, “Innumerate Ethics,” deeming them mathematically flawed. However, the controversy surrounding Taurek’s work persists. It isn’t simply an academic exercise; it forces us to confront fundamental questions about the value of human life and the ethical frameworks we use to make life-or-death decisions. The implications extend far beyond hypothetical scenarios, touching on resource allocation in healthcare, disaster relief, and even broader societal policies.
Beyond the Numbers: A Call for Ethical Reflection
While Taurek’s conclusions might seem jarring at first glance, his work serves as a crucial reminder that ethical decision-making isn’t always a simple matter of calculating numbers. The question of whether to prioritize the many over the few compels us to consider the inherent worth of each individual and the potential ethical pitfalls of purely utilitarian approaches. This philosophical debate, far from being a relic of the past, remains incredibly relevant today, challenging us to think critically about the values that underpin our moral judgments. The continued discussion surrounding Taurek’s work highlights the ongoing need for nuanced and ethical frameworks to guide our decisions, particularly in situations with high stakes and difficult choices.
SOURCE INFORMATION:
TITLE: The case for caring about shrimp
DESCRIPTION: We all know that it’s better to save five people’s lives than to save only one. But in 1977, one philosopher dared to argue…maybe it isn’t? “Should the Numbers Count?” by John Taurek is among the few modern philosophy papers that might fairly be described as infamous. When I was taught it as an undergrad, […]
CONTENT: We all know that it’s better to save five people’s lives than to save only one. But in 1977, one philosopher dared to argue…maybe it isn’t? “Should the Numbers Count?” by John Taurek is among the few modern philosophy papers that might fairly be described as infamous. When I was taught it as an undergrad, it was presented as something between a cautionary tale and a punching bag, a set of dubious arguments in favor of a conclusion so absurd that it’s astonishing a respected UCLA professor put his name to it. The most prominent reply, from famed Oxford moral philosopher Derek Parfit, was simply titled, “Innumerate Ethics.” Taurek asks the reader to imagine a situation in which there is “a supply of some lifesaving drugs. Six people will all certainly die if they are not treated with the drug. But one of the six requires all of the drug if he is to survive. Each of the other five requires only one-fifth of the drug.” What should be done? Most people, Taurek concedes
SOURCE: Vox
Based on materials: Vox
