This is an easy question if you subscribe to desire utilitarianism.
1) Desires are the only things that drive action.
2) A person with good desires has desires that tend to promote more desires than they thwart
3) Assuming nobody has the desire to die, and also taking into consideration that nobody wants members of their family to die, A person with good desires would chose the option that thwarts the least number of desires.
In this instance the death of one person thwarts less desires than the death of ten.
Therefore the moral action is to prevent the death of the ten.
Dilemma solved.
The one with you or a stranger is much harder, but because they are a stranger the only desires you should assume is their desire to live. However you know for certain that your death will thwart more desires than that where as you can only guess that their death will thwart the same. Given that this instance is reliant on informed probability therefore i believe it is moral to save yourself.
The two strangers is not so much of a problem, i would say that it is more moral to die than to allow two others to die because two desires to live are greater than one and unless you assume that your life will fulfill more desires than the two opposing, say if you are a doctor or the president, then desire utilitarianism states that it is more moral to save yourself.
You may believe incorrectly that your death will thwart less other desires than the death of the two strangers, however given the circumstances and s long as one has a sensible epistemology and an ability to promote many other desires, the moral decision would be self-preservation.
1) Desires are the only things that drive action.
2) A person with good desires has desires that tend to promote more desires than they thwart
3) Assuming nobody has the desire to die, and also taking into consideration that nobody wants members of their family to die, A person with good desires would chose the option that thwarts the least number of desires.
In this instance the death of one person thwarts less desires than the death of ten.
Therefore the moral action is to prevent the death of the ten.
Dilemma solved.
The one with you or a stranger is much harder, but because they are a stranger the only desires you should assume is their desire to live. However you know for certain that your death will thwart more desires than that where as you can only guess that their death will thwart the same. Given that this instance is reliant on informed probability therefore i believe it is moral to save yourself.
The two strangers is not so much of a problem, i would say that it is more moral to die than to allow two others to die because two desires to live are greater than one and unless you assume that your life will fulfill more desires than the two opposing, say if you are a doctor or the president, then desire utilitarianism states that it is more moral to save yourself.
You may believe incorrectly that your death will thwart less other desires than the death of the two strangers, however given the circumstances and s long as one has a sensible epistemology and an ability to promote many other desires, the moral decision would be self-preservation.
.
