Or the one?
I would be curious what Lemmings think the results of a survey would be, if that question were asked in a non-political setting?
Or the one?
I would be curious what Lemmings think the results of a survey would be, if that question were asked in a non-political setting?
The answer is yes, with the caveat that the many are not particularly good at figuring out what they need and that they often choose a sub-optimal solution to help a few people that there is some sort of emotional attachment to.
They’re also really bad at understanding their biases in this scenario. They will often say “no” verbally but then make daily decisions that contradict that.
If three people all have different terminal medical conditions, which are currently making their state of life excruciating, and will kill them shortly, and there is one healthy person who can be killed and their organs repurposed to restore quality of life and stop the medical condition to all of those people then utilitarianism says it is moral to do that.
Any answer saying that it is wrong to do that shows there must be a factor beyond need in the determination.
There is a need by the population to be protected against being directly killed to help others.
That question becomes a lot murkier when it isn’t a direct killing, such as the American healthcare system where poor people are just left to die so that doctors can be more quickly available to handle patients who can afford care. That happens daily, and plenty of people are totally okay with it.