Five Thought Experiments That Challenge Utilitarianism
Five Thought Experiments That Challenge Utilitarianism
1. The Organ Transplant Case
Scenario: Imagine you are a doctor in a hospital with five patients who are all in desperate need of organ transplants. Each patient requires a different organ—a heart, liver, lungs, kidneys, and pancreas—to survive. One day, a healthy young man comes in for a routine check-up. You realize that if you were to sacrifice this young man, you could use his organs to save all five patients. According to strict utilitarianism, this action would result in the greatest good for the greatest number since five lives would be saved at the cost of one.
Challenge: The idea of killing an innocent person to save others raises concerns about justice and the potential for abuse if harming or killing one person could always be justified by the potential benefits to others. And even a utilitarian might refuse to live in a society where they or their loved ones might end up being the sacrifice.
2. The Trolley Problem
Scenario: A runaway trolley is headed toward five people tied up on the tracks. You are standing next to a lever that can switch the trolley onto another track, where there is only one person tied up. If you do nothing, the trolley will continue on its current track, killing the five people. If you pull the lever, the trolley will switch tracks, killing the one person but saving the five. In a more challenging version of the problem, you are standing on a bridge with a large man. If you push him off the bridge, his body will stop the trolley and save the five people on the track, but the man you push will die.
Challenge: While many people might reluctantly agree to pull the lever in the first scenario, they are often uncomfortable with the idea of pushing the man off the bridge in the second scenario. This discomfort suggests that people have moral intuitions that go beyond simple utilitarian calculus. The difference between the two scenarios—actively pushing someone to their death versus diverting a threat—points to the importance of how outcomes are brought about, not just the outcomes themselves. It challenges the idea that only consequences matter and suggests that the means by which we achieve outcomes also have moral significance.
3. The Experience Machine
This thought experiment was proposed by philosopher Robert Nozick as a challenge to hedonistic utilitarianism, which equates the good with pleasure or happiness.
Scenario: Imagine there is an "experience machine" that can simulate any pleasurable experience you desire. Once connected to this machine, you will experience a life filled with pleasure, happiness, and satisfaction. However, while you are in the machine, you won’t know that the experiences are artificial; you will feel as though they are real. The machine can guarantee a life of pleasure more intense than any you could achieve in the real world. Would you choose to plug into the machine for the rest of your life?
Challenge: Many people would hesitate to plug into the experience machine, suggesting that they value things other than just pleasure or happiness. They might value living in contact with reality, having genuine relationships, and accomplishing real goals, despite obstacles and sacrifices. This thought experiment challenges utilitarianism, particularly its hedonistic form, by suggesting that people care about many other things besides pleasure.
4. The Utility Monster
This thought experiment was also introduced by philosopher Robert Nozick.
Scenario: Imagine a being called the "Utility Monster" who derives an immense amount of happiness from consuming resources. This monster experiences far more pleasure from each unit of resource than any normal human being. If we follow utilitarian principles strictly, we should keep giving more and more resources to the Utility Monster, even at the expense of everyone else. According to utilitarianism, this maximizes total happiness because the monster's pleasure far outweighs the small losses in utility experienced by everyone else.
Challenge: This thought experiment illustrates a problem with utilitarianism's focus on maximizing total utility. It suggests that if we follow utilitarian logic to its extreme, we could end up justifying highly unequal distributions of resources, where the suffering or deprivation of the majority is justified by the immense happiness of a single individual or a small group.
5. The Repugnant Conclusion
This thought experiment was developed by philosopher Derek Parfit.
Scenario: Suppose we can choose between two populations. Population A has 1 billion people, all living very happy and fulfilling lives. Population Z, on the other hand, has 100 billion people, but each person has a life that is only barely worth living—they experience just enough happiness to make life preferable to not existing at all. According to a straightforward utilitarian calculation, Population Z might be considered better because the total sum of happiness in Population Z is higher than in Population A, despite the lower quality of life for each individual.
Challenge: This scenario leads to what Parfit calls the "Repugnant Conclusion"—the idea that a very large population with lives barely worth living could be considered preferable to a smaller population of people living extremely happy lives. This challenges utilitarianism by highlighting that maximizing total utility can lead to morally repugnant outcomes. It suggests that there might be more to a good life than merely the sum total of happiness, and that quality of life matters in a way that simple utilitarian calculations might fail to capture.
In summary, the primary challenges to utilitarianism center around its potential to justify socially questionable actions, overlook individual justice, and reduce complex ethical decisions to mere calculations of pleasure or utility.
Comments
Post a Comment