Whose Life is Worth More?

If given a split second to decide which people are rescued from a 2-car accident where an explosion is imminent, it's likely you'll grab those closest to your reach. But what if one vehicle is shuttling a global leader, popular celebrity or wealthy businessman, while the other has several college freshmen? Does one life hold more value from a "greater good" standpoint and deserve to be saved over the others?

Are You Better Than Me?
Utility requires society to act on the benefit of the majority; while siding with the greater good is not necessarily best for all, it is alleged to be the most equitable under general circumstances. Utilitarians will argue against the claim their social philosophy is merely totalitarianism in disguise, being there is simply no way to satisfy 100% of any group. By appeasing the majority, more people are served at the minority's expense, an unfortunate situation that often leaves the same individuals to adapt to –- or be detrimentally impacted by -- the greater good.

The main tenet of utility, according to Brue et al, is rational self-interest rather than selfishness, because "increasing one's own wage, rent, interest, or profit normally requires identifying and satisfying somebody else's wants," such as when parents pay their children's college tuition. Another way to understand this is by examining the meaning of altruism, which by today's standards has transformed into a philanthropic definition from its origin of perpetuating the species. This biological reality is easily demonstrated by how a bee stings an intruder, ultimately forfeiting its own life to protect the queen and hive.

Because society is fundamentally based upon performance and profit, it's not difficult to perceive utility as an opposing force to our altruistic nature. So many contemporary societies still endure incredible poverty, disease and homelessness despite global resources fully capable of feeding, clothing, educating, housing and medicating the suffering masses.


That Pesky Moral Compass

Warren Quinn, author of "Actions, Intentions, and Consequences: The Doctrine of Doing and Allowing," notes how the cloud of dispute swirling around this sociopolitical disgrace can quickly spin out of control when emotions override the greater good. Ask yourself what you'd do if you were in the following hypothetical scenario.

Engineer Bill is faced with the most difficult decision of his life: does he avert the runaway trolley to save little Sarah who is caught on the tracks at the expense of 100 passengers headed for certain death if he switches tracks? Or does he spare those hundred people in exchange for one little girl's life? Utility compels Engineer Bill to save the passengers by forfeiting Sarah, yet this does not relieve him from struggling with his battered moral compass. Harming someone is inevitable in this situation, but the question is whether making the least damaging choice is always the best decision.

Clearly, the vast opposition between utilitarianism and ordinary morality creates a disturbing issue within Engineer Bill that forces him choose between the value of different lives. But as Wendler duly points out, "our attitudes in this regard are based on a rational cost/benefit analysis. To that extent, these attitudes do not provide an ethical argument" for exposing some people to certain risks for the benefit of others. Nemo Taylor provides a lasting reminder when faced with the choice between social mandate and ordinary morality: "Don't do the right thing out of some bland sense of duty or obligation. Do it because you recognize it's the only way to truly be happy and content with your own life."


Bird photo by Greg Kowalczewski
Pyramid graphic by Gilbert Alter-Gilbert