The AskPhilosophers logo.

Ethics
Medicine

In a hypothetical situation that could possibly have real-life implications, how should one decide between helping a small group of extremely sick individuals with only a small possibility of benefits (e.g., caring for AIDS patients without knowledge of whether or not your treatment will allow them to live) or helping many who have a greater chance of surviving (e.g., spending more time with individuals with proven treatable illnesses)? With either choice, it seems that there is a serious quandary. Should one elect to help the many, neglecting to care for those who are most likely to perish anyways? If so, is this justifiable by helping cure more while leaving those few sick individuals to fend for themselves?
Accepted:
December 1, 2008

Comments

Miriam Solomon
December 4, 2008 (changed December 4, 2008) Permalink

According to the utilitarian approach, you should do the most good (or, what is likeliest to lead to the most good). And if you really are a utilitarian, you should look at all options, not just the two you mentioned (include options such as sending all your money to UNICEF, or becoming a Mother Teresa).

Non-utilitarians approach such questions differently. They are more likely to consider what you WANT to do in the discussion about how to lead a moral life.

  • Log in to post comments
Source URL: https://askphilosophers.org/question/2451?page=0
© 2005-2025 AskPhilosophers.org