The 'right' to sacrifice

Is it "right" in whichever context to take the life of one individual to save the lives of ten? Does the Bentham idea of "the greatest good for the greatest number" transcend the 'rights' of the individual?

Post 1

Saturday, October 30, 2004 - 6:01pm

No.

Monday, November 1, 2004 - 7:12am

Sure, consider the case of Regina v. Dudley and Stephens. Two crewman on a shipwreck killed and ate their ailing young shipmate in order to escape imminent death by starvation. I think three crewmen actually ate the guy. So the death of one saved three. Were the number ten instead of three, my view wouldn't change. I consider it reasonable for a person, who would otherwise die, to kill and eat another, gross as that might be.

Also, I can imagine a situation where I've caused the imminent death of either one or ten people, and I can save only the one or the ten. I can give you details if you like.

Jordan

Post 3

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:02am

Does "the greatest good for the greatest number" transcend the 'rights' of the individual?

No, it does not.

This is the justification often presented for the majority of social programs and is in fact the ethics of cannibalism (I think Rand said that, don't recall exactly where).

I want to add a more reasoned reply to your question courtney but at the momment I can't provide one. My own knowledge of objectivist ethics is limited. I would encourage you to research the philosophy as I am doing. www.importanceofphilosophy.com is a good resource also http://www.solohq.com/Objectivism/

~E.

(Edited by Eric J. Tower on 11/02, 8:18am)

Post 4

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 8:28am

There is no such thing as "the greatest/greater" good. There is only the good, for the individual.

John

Post 5

Tuesday, November 2, 2004 - 3:19pm

I would modify what John Newnham said. Only the individual can possess the good, even though there could be more good with more people. That is, if it's good for the individual to, say, hold a steady job, then X and Y holding jobs is more good than just X holding a job. The thing is, why should we care if there's more total good in the world, if that good isn't held by us? From an O'ist viewpoint, we should care only inasmuch as that good affects us for better or worse.

Jordan

Post 6

Wednesday, November 3, 2004 - 2:24pm