Guess who's in a bad mood? Our ToK teacher. Since some "brainiacs" tried to dodge homework, Neo style.
Still, I got my weekly dose of Machiavelli in form of utilitarianism and deontology. In short, These two are opposite: utilitarianism claims that the end justifies the means (#TeamMachiavelli) while deontology claims that it doesn't (#TeamPuritans). Most common example for this problem is the "trolley problem", where one must choose whether they kill one person directly, or let several others die by doing nothing.
Trolley problem
But I will use a different example: the doctor.
Imagine a doctor, a surgeon. He has five patients, random people, who all greatly need various organ transplantations. Suddenly, a young traveler comes to the doctor for a routine checkup, and the doctor notices that the traveler's organs match perfectly with the ones needed for the transplantations. If the travaler were to... disappear, none would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor take his organs and transplant them into his five patients? Now, some means are unethical on their own, not observing the end; but the greater good, in my opinion, wins over petty debates over who was the traveler and who were the patients. Just thinking like that is, for me, too subjective for an ethical argument. In total disconnection from the people, five lives are worth more than one; and saying that, say, a CEO's life is worth more than an IRS inspector's, teacher's, writer's, taxi driver's and hairdresser's is just one opinion and cannot be used to support deontology. Of course, not all ethical bounds may be crossed this way, but some may. However, defining "greater good" is tricky, and a new area upon itself.
Obviously, I'm #TeamMachiavelli to the (greater good) end. Spread these hashtags all over, and don't forget a towel 😉
Still, I got my weekly dose of Machiavelli in form of utilitarianism and deontology. In short, These two are opposite: utilitarianism claims that the end justifies the means (#TeamMachiavelli) while deontology claims that it doesn't (#TeamPuritans). Most common example for this problem is the "trolley problem", where one must choose whether they kill one person directly, or let several others die by doing nothing.
Trolley problem
But I will use a different example: the doctor.
Imagine a doctor, a surgeon. He has five patients, random people, who all greatly need various organ transplantations. Suddenly, a young traveler comes to the doctor for a routine checkup, and the doctor notices that the traveler's organs match perfectly with the ones needed for the transplantations. If the travaler were to... disappear, none would suspect the doctor. Should the doctor take his organs and transplant them into his five patients? Now, some means are unethical on their own, not observing the end; but the greater good, in my opinion, wins over petty debates over who was the traveler and who were the patients. Just thinking like that is, for me, too subjective for an ethical argument. In total disconnection from the people, five lives are worth more than one; and saying that, say, a CEO's life is worth more than an IRS inspector's, teacher's, writer's, taxi driver's and hairdresser's is just one opinion and cannot be used to support deontology. Of course, not all ethical bounds may be crossed this way, but some may. However, defining "greater good" is tricky, and a new area upon itself.
Obviously, I'm #TeamMachiavelli to the (greater good) end. Spread these hashtags all over, and don't forget a towel 😉
Нема коментара:
Постави коментар