Let's say it would take the torture and death of 100 million people to find the cure for death and aging. The cure would be cheap and easy to make and is easily distributed to the rest of the world's population. With utilitarianism, it seems like it would be a morally just thing to do. Does utilitarianism have some kind of caveat to deal with that kind of situation? Are the rights of the few protected? A similar situation would be a doctor killing someone to harvest their organs to save the lives of multiple people. Is that morally just with utilitarianism?

  • Highly related question: Is it possible to devise a system of ethics using any approach (not just utilitarianism) which only admits acts which are deemed moral by some other system? I think utilitarianism makes the issues obvious, but I think the issue you raise is one of ethics in general.
    – Cort Ammon
    Feb 16, 2016 at 15:44


Browse other questions tagged .