without being able to do anything. Tom either dies and saves his siblings or lives and watches his siblings die, while knowing he could have saved them. The siblings either all die to let their brother live or they all live and let their brother die. If you look at all the smaller situations going on in the big picture, it is evident what the greatest choice would be. Killing Tom would let the Doctor only see one death, as opposed to four, let the parents keep four out of the five of their children, let four children live, and let Tom die knowing he saved his siblings. The overall utility would connect to this choice very clearly.
This case proves the Consequentialist’s, John Stuart Mill’s approach to the situation.
If we were lookin gat the case in a consequentialist’s point of view, we would still kill Tom to save the four other children. Consequentialism is defined as “a general approach to ethics that maintains that consequences –and only consequences- are what make something morally good or bad” (95.) The consequence or killing Tom would be saving four other children, therefore the ratio would remain 4:1 and the consequences would be desirable. Mill’s explains that some pleasures fall on a higher plane than others. This would be the reason that killing Tom would be okay. One of the highest pleasures, according to Mill is helping others. In this case, Tom is dying, but he dies knowing he did it to help four others live. That in Utilitarianism and Consequentialism would promote the greatest utility, therefore be the greatest choice to make in the
situation.