Is It Morally Permissible To Kill One Person to Save Five
John: Is it morally permissible to kill one person to save five?
Peter: yes, I would kill one to save five lives.
John: why?
Peter: because five lives have more value than one.
John: you got it, wrong brother,
Peter: how?
John: making such a decision requires one to consider the trolley dilemma that revolves around actions, intentions, and consequences. Don't use plagiarised sources.Get your custom essay just from $11/page
Peter: Tell me much about it because, in my case, the outcome is the essential factor that ought to be considered.
John: when faced with such a moral dilemma, it is imperative to consider the moral intuitions beyond the consequences. However, sometimes, moral intuitions are not consistent or reliable because there is a difference between letting to die and killing.
Peter: but whether letting to die or killing, the outcome is that one person dies at the expense of five others.
John: imagine a situation whereby a doctor has to harvest organs from a healthy person by killing the individual and donating them to five others and saving their lives. Another situation is whereby the diversion of the tram results in the death of one person rather than five others. Hence, the principle of double effect comes into consideration when assessing the moral dilemma.
Peter: as far as I am concerned, the main factor to consider the number of lives lost and those saved, no matter the direction you take this argument, my decision is founded on the consequence.
John: let me inform you about the double effect.
Peter: bring it on.
John: the principle of double effect mostly focuses on one being indirectly allowed to cause harm in case an action promotes a greater good, but not to directly cause harm even if one is pursuing a greater good. People have equal rights, and the permissibility of action should be founded on the consequences and depends on embraces utilitarianism or consequentialism. Hence, considering everyone has equal rights, not one should be killed even if the intention would be to save five.
Peter: in some instances, the rights need to be side-stepped, and that is why this issue is a dilemma.
John: while addressing this dilemma, it is imperative to assess the parts of the brain that are activated when making the decision. Emotions trigger the decision by a doctor to kill a healthy person and harvest the body organs. In contrast, the decision to divert the tram of the main track is triggered by rationality and logic.
Peter: your argument is obvious, although you are not convincing or providing a solution to the dilemma. What is apparent in this case is that when faced with the dilemma, the majority of the people, like me, would cause harm to one person at the expense of the five others irrespective of whether other actions are considered permissible or not.
John: my point is very clear, everyone has equal rights; therefore, through considering the principle of double effect, I would not kill a healthy person to save the lives of five people. However, I can indirectly cause the death of a person by diverting the tram of the main track since I shall not have directly killed the person.
Peter: My claim remains, whether letting to die or killing, the lives of five people cannot be sacrificed at the expense of one person; hence, I can either kill or let one person die and save the five.