RE: An uncomfortable ethics question.
September 17, 2010 at 5:41 am
(This post was last modified: September 17, 2010 at 5:50 am by Rayaan.)
I agree with theVoid in that from a utilitarian perspective, the right thing to do in such a dilemma, would be to sacrifice yourself for the 10 random people. But if I was asked this question, then I would choose to live and let the 10 people die. Why? Because I don't know the future. It might be the case that there is something more valuable that I could offer to the world if i were to live instead of allowing the ten people to live (but most likely not, of course).
Maybe apply Kant's categorical imperative? For example, first you have to ask yourself, "Is it a morally good choice to sacrifice your life for 10 random people?," Then ask yourself, "Would it be a good thing if every single person in the world was asked this question and said that they would die in order for the ten people to live?" I think the answer should vary on this question, depending on the person's future accomplishments and/or helpfulness to others.
However, the main reason for my answer is not because of the categorical imperative, but rather, because of my selfishness.
Maybe apply Kant's categorical imperative? For example, first you have to ask yourself, "Is it a morally good choice to sacrifice your life for 10 random people?," Then ask yourself, "Would it be a good thing if every single person in the world was asked this question and said that they would die in order for the ten people to live?" I think the answer should vary on this question, depending on the person's future accomplishments and/or helpfulness to others.
However, the main reason for my answer is not because of the categorical imperative, but rather, because of my selfishness.
