Examples Of Utilitarianism In The Lifeboat
Simply put, Utilitarianism states that one should act on what would bring the greatest happiness or benefit to the greatest amount of people. Therefore, a utilitarian would agree to push two heaviest passengers overboard to save the six. While it violates our morals to kill two people, a utilitarian would explain their choice with the integrity objection. In the situation of the lifeboat, one is faced with a situation that does not present a perfect outcome. However, a utilitarian would say that we must choose the best outcome, which in the view of a utilitarian, would be throwing the two passengers overboard to save the other six. A utilitarian could also use act and rule utilitarianism for the case of throwing the passengers overboard.
In the case of act utilitarianism it is simple, one would throw the two overboard because as act utilitarianism states, it is not the individual that matters, but the benefit to the greater amount of people. In the case of rule utilitarianism, one would break the law of murder, as they would be killing the two passengers. However, rule utilitarianism states that we are able to break a set rule or law when it will benefit a great amount of people, which in the case of the lifeboat, would apply. When faced with this question, I see the option of denying to push the two passengers overboard as more morally correct than the first. While choosing to push the passengers overboard would save yourself and the others, you would live the rest of your life knowing that the only reason you are alive is because you killed two innocent lives. While a utilitarian would not agree with my choice, I would rather die on the lifeboat than live with the guilt of killing the two passengers.
In the case of act utilitarianism it is simple, one would throw the two overboard because as act utilitarianism states, it is not the individual that matters, but the benefit to the greater amount of people. In the case of rule utilitarianism, one would break the law of murder, as they would be killing the two passengers. However, rule utilitarianism states that we are able to break a set rule or law when it will benefit a great amount of people, which in the case of the lifeboat, would apply. When faced with this question, I see the option of denying to push the two passengers overboard as more morally correct than the first. While choosing to push the passengers overboard would save yourself and the others, you would live the rest of your life knowing that the only reason you are alive is because you killed two innocent lives. While a utilitarian would not agree with my choice, I would rather die on the lifeboat than live with the guilt of killing the two passengers.