Consequentialism — Does the End Justify the Means?
Five lives saved at the cost of one — most people accept that calculation. But change the case slightly and the math becomes unbearable: would you sacrifice one healthy patient to save five who need transplants? The arithmetic is identical. The verdict almost always isn't. Consequentialism judges actions by their outcomes — produce the most good, minimise the most harm — and it captures something real about how people reason in emergencies. It also runs into a sharp limit when the best aggregate outcome requires using a person as a means.
Vote on this dilemma
You are a doctor. One healthy patient's organs could save the lives of 5 people dying in the next room. No one would ever know.
3 votes cast
Research background
Bentham and Mill formulated the modern utilitarian version of consequentialism in the 18th and 19th centuries. Contemporary philosophers continue to debate where the boundary lies between aggregate welfare and individual rights.
- Consequentialism — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
- Moral Dilemmas — Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy
SplitVote is for entertainment and aggregate insight, not a scientific test.
Related dilemmas
A runaway trolley is heading toward 5 people. You can pull a lever to divert it — but it will kill 1 person instead.
A new pandemic: there is only one vaccine dose left in the city. You and an elderly stranger both need it to survive. A doctor hands it to you.
A new tax would halve the income of the top 1% and double the income of the bottom 20%. The total wealth in society stays the same.
Every adult receives €1,500/month from the government. Taxes for the top 20% double. Do you support it?
Related topics
No account required. Your vote is anonymous.