The Lifeboat Case And Utilitarianism
The Lifeboat Case and Utilitarianism Imagine that four men are placed in a life or death situation. They are stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean with nothing to eat for nourishment. In a severely weakened state, the men decide that for the benefit of the majority they will draw lots and eat whoever draws the shortest; one of the men refuses to draw. The next day, in spite of the lottery, the youngest boy is killed and fed on by the other men. The argument proposed to justify their actions is that the young boy, sick from malnourishment and from drinking seawater, would have died anyway. Also, were it not for the cabin boy’s body, the other three men would not have survived. The principle of utility is called into question with this particular case because it is used to justify the killing of the young boy. According to utilitarian reasoning, the benefit of saving three peoples lives outweighs the value of the loss of one life. Utilitarianism is a theory of justice whose highest principle is to maximize happiness and utility: “The basic idea of utilitarianism is simple: the right thing to do is what produces the most good” (Mill, 15). The “most good” can be understood in terms of happiness, or the greater amount of pleasure than of pain. Therefore, utilitarians measure the consequences of actions by how much the results bring happiness to the greatest amount of people. The best alternative to any situation is the one that produces the greatest net utility. According to John Stuart Mill, “”Utility” or the “greatest happiness principle” holds that actions are right in proportion as they tend to promote happiness; wrong as they tend to produce the reverse of happiness” (16). Therefore, whatever produces the most good is considered to be just. The utilitarian perspective supports` the killing of the young boy by the three men because the “good” that comes from the survival of the three men is greater than having all of the men die from starvation.