-Thought experiments are made-up scenarios used in ethics to gauge the extents to which we believe in a principle.
-Utilitarianism (U-til-it-air-re-in-ism) is the belief that choices should do 'the greatest good for the greatest number of people', to give "the greatest total overall benefit" ie. If you could choose to make
1 person 8 'points' happier or
5 people 2 points happier; a utilitarian would argue for making 5 people only a little bit happier as there is more total happiness (10 points) rather than by making one significantly happier (8 points total)
In most cases, this seems like the best idea to have when thinking about the results of your actions, but it isn't quite so clear cut:
In medicine, the PCTs (soon to be 're-organised' (thanks Andy ¬_¬)) must decide where to spend their budget each year. In this thought experiment there are two possible options of treatments. The PCT can only afford one. Treatment A is a drug proven to lower the blood pressure in those at risk; on average delivering an extra year of life to those on a course of it. Treatment B is a new piece of surgical gear that allows for the first time the ability to perform an operation to remove a previously inoperable tumour from a patient's brain. Without this piece of equipment, the sufferer is more than likely to die; but with treatment they are more than likely to continue loving normally and happily for the rest of their live; treatment B on average gives a patient an extra 30 years of life. In this particular area it is estimated that 1,000 people could benefit from treat A, each gaining on average 1 year. It is estimated that 5 people could benefit from treatment B gaining 30 years each.
Given that the PCT can only afford one, which one would you choose,if in their place?
The Utilitarian approach would be to go for treatment A; in total 1,000 years of life in total would be gained, whereas with B only 150 years would be gained.
The opposite point of view, would be that by going for treatment A it is almost a conscious death sentence for those with condition B, who will die without this treatment. Those who will benefit from A will generally have lived a full and fine life without this drug and one year extra is not as significant to them as 30 years. [2]
This scenario is a version of one of THE most famous thought experiments around; The trolley. You've probably never even heard of it... I jk, you probably have :)
:
Wikipedia gives a decent idea of this problem, so i'll let them take it from here:
"Suppose that a judge or magistrate is faced with rioters demanding that a culprit be found for a certain crime and threatening otherwise to take their own bloody revenge on a particular section of the community. The real culprit being unknown, the judge sees himself as able to prevent the bloodshed only by framing some innocent person and having him executed. Beside this example is placed another in which a pilot whose aeroplane is about to crash is deciding whether to steer from a more to a less inhabited area. To make the parallel as close as possible it may rather be supposed that he is the driver of a runaway tram which he can only steer from one narrow track on to another; five men are working on one track and one man on the other; anyone on the track he enters is bound to be killed. In the case of the riots the mob have five hostages, so that in both the exchange is supposed to be one man's life for the lives of five." [3]
The crux of it is that; you are forced to make an active decision as to whether you would allow one person to die instead of many more? A train is coming down the tracks; 5 people are strapped to the line; with no way of saving them and the train can't stop - you have the choice however to pull a switch to make the train change which track it is on - the new track has only 1 person tied to it. Would you pull the switch - actively doing something to kill a person to save 5?
This scenario has a few problems. In court you would be probably charged with manslaughter for changing the lines and killing someone. But not punished for doing nothing, allowing 5 people to die. [Side question: should the law be changed to mean people in this sitaution (well, an ethically similiar one) should be charged for not acting rather than
for acting?]
Long story short; the morale of this story is that a utilitarian solution is not always the best one, and that sometimes it may be better to put all your eggs in one basket.
Until next time; was a werid one today xx
