I'm gonna assume this is your homework. Welcome to the forum.

First, I would agree that number shouldn't be the overriding motivation to act or decide on a particular ethical event. But, there's a bit to explain here about using number as factor in decision. The runaway train moral dilemma (you can google this for the entire story) has an element of sacrificing one person to save multiple people. That train problem is easier for me to decide. My decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going. Many people would think of this as saving one person by killing 5 people. I disagree that this is how we should look at it. But I won't elaborate too much as this is not what you're asking.

Anyway, back to your problem. The numbers game in your scenario is not the same as the runaway train. In your scenario, it's the scarcity of the drug that's controlling the situation. So, in this case, I would not toss a coin, and I would further argue that Taurek is wrong in using number to equalize the situation. Because the issue is scarcity of the drug, I would use the desert factor. If we're going to deny the 5 individuals the pill, does the one individual deserve to have it? Do they have families? Children? Do they have obligations in life that make them irreplaceable, so to speak? So, if the one individual requiring an entire dose is a criminal, a single individual, or a young person with no other obligation, I would seriously think the other five could have the pill. And likewise, I would examine the 5 individuals who only require one fifth dose.

The President of the United States of America is the counterexample to utilitarian ethics of numbers. The USA will send its entire army to fight to the death to save the US President! Am I correct? As far as the US high command is concerned The President of the United States of America is America! Just imagine a weighing scale with the entire population of USA in one pan and the POTUS in the the other - the POTUS weighs more!

Interesting stuff, eh?

The same goes for other world leaders, single individuals for whom the entire nation is sacrificed if it comes to that!

Just sayin'...

You are distributing a lifesaving drug. Six individuals all need the drug to survive. Five of them each only require one-fifth of the drug for survival, while the sixth individual requires the entire dosage. — Camille

Why are you saving their lives in the first place? Six people will die without external life support in the form of this drug, therefore, rather than say you are denying life to someone regardless of the choice you make, reframe it to consider: why are you interrupting the otherwise natural progression of these people's lives by unnaturally denying their deaths? Perhaps it is more unethical to deny these deaths than to simply walk away and allow nature to progress.

That and, regardless of the drug, no deaths are being avoided. They are being delayed at best.

The same goes for other world leaders, single individuals for whom the entire nation is sacrificed if it comes to that! — Agent Smith

I would order my 1001th nation army to fight until death so I could reach you alive, Agent Smith, my dear love! :hearts:

We might regard each individual life as having equal value but in this case we are not dealing with an individual. It is not 1=1. It is 1=5.

On a societal level the consequences of saving or loosing five lives is greater than saving or loosing one. Although things might be different if the contribution of one person greatly outweighs that of the others.

At the root of the problem is the conflict between individualism and the common good. That is not a conflict we can resolve, but how one answers the question of who gets the drug may depending on where one stands on individualism.

I am looking for some strategies to appeal to why multiple deaths are worse than one (specifically in the realm of Taurek cases). I am hoping to find methods to make this claim that do a little more than just repeat consequentialist beliefs. — Camille

Isn't the answer straight-forward and obvious? Isn't it clear that five deaths are worse than one death? It has nothing to do with weighing one person's life against other's. What if it were 10 to 1. 100 to 1. 10,000 to 1. There's a line somewhere when it becomes silly to argue it doesn't matter. I don't think there should be any moral quandary with 5 to 1 - five deaths is worse than one.

Another question - Where would I draw the line if the one person in question was my daughter?

Welcome to the forum.

Another question - Where would I draw the line if the one person in question was my daughter. — T Clark

You would let a million die to dont let her die, wontya?

Isn't it clear that five deaths are worse than one death? It has nothing to do with weighing one person's life against other's. — T Clark

In this case it does. The cause of the situation is the scarcity of the drug. I wouldn't save a criminal's life. I'd give it to who is more deserving.

In fact, aren't we doing it now? Those who receive a transplant must pass the "good candidate" test for receiving the organ. Meaning, the person must be suited for the transplant.

I am looking for some strategies to appeal to why multiple deaths are worse than one — Camille

I think that the word "strategies" is too much of a requirement for this case. I would rather use the term "thesis" or even just "argument". The immediate answer is "Because the damage is larger". This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good for the greatest number". Then the opposite would be "doing the major harm to the major number". Isn't this enough for your appeal?

There are millions of realistic and striking examples one can offer for the above thesis/argument, which don't leave the least doubt for its validity. A single of them is just enough:

Would it be the same if Nazis had killed a single Jewish person instead of millions?

I find then difficult to believe that any thinking mind --Taurek or other-- can come to a conclusion such as that "the relative number of people involved is not something of significance in moral decision making" ...

Nevertheless, let's see what are the arguments here ... Saying that "each individual in a trade-off situation deserves equal consideration and that their chances of survival should each be maximized" can stand as an argument only on the basis that there must not be a discrimination between individuals, in general. But, as a general argument, it cannot always stand. One cannot always maximize the chances all the individuals --involved in case-- at the same time.

Doctors often have to solve such dilemmas. For example, when they have to save a not-yet-born-baby from its mother's womb by an immediate C-section, when the mother is supposed to die anyway. There are a lot of Covid care cases, where doctors must let an old man or a fatally sick person die and give a single oxygen mask they have at their disposition to a young and more healthy person.

As far as "numbers" are concerned ... We have a lot of examples in life where one or more individuals sacrifice themselves to save other people, larger in number or who have not the same means of saving themselves as they do. Professional people is the first thing that comes to mind: firemen, soldiers, lifeguards, ... But also any individual who puts his/herself at risk to save others.

Number counts!

(I hope this serves your purpose. I wrote much more than what is required. I just tried to inspire you! :smile: The first paragraph is enough, for me at least.)

Those who receive a transplant must pass the "good candidate" test for receiving the organ. Meaning, the person must be suited for the transplant. — L'éléphant

My brother had a kidney transplant about five years ago when he was 67. Before the doctors would allow the operation to proceed, he had to meet health requirements, including losing a lot of weight. There are a limited number of organs for transplant. They want to make sure they go to people who will benefit from them. Makes sense to me.

:up: I hope your brother is living a healthy life now. That's great!

This is evident, if ethics is defined as "doing the major good to the major number". — Alkis Piskas

Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. The trolley (runaway train) problem is one. I refuse to sacrifice anyone just so a few could live. That's not moral reasoning. And no, ethics is not defined as that. It's Bentham's theory.

Utilitarianism isn't always good because it stunts our moral judgment. — L'éléphant

What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality?
And why "does it stunt our moral judgment"? Isn't or shouldn't moral judgenent be based on certain moral principles? The definition of ethics that I presented, which is what I believe and works for me --you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind?

What does stunt your moral judgement is believing in and act based on "The Ten Commandments" and whatever other given set of moral values.

They want to make sure they go to people who will benefit from them. — T Clark

Aren't that all people who need a new kidney?

What does "not always good" mean? Can one apply a different theory, system, view of morality to different cases or decide about a moral action based on different theories, systems or views of morality? — Alkis Piskas

Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. Ethics and morality are more complex than what the greatest good theory presents. For one thing, whatever it is to achieve the greatest good for the greatest number of people is essentially a consequentialist attitude. So long as we're achieving the end goal of greatest number of people, it's okay to make some people morally dissatisfied. I gave the example of the runaway train to express my objection to this kind of thinking: saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual is morally reprehensible.

We're not locked in to any one moral systems. Adjustments and deliberations should always be included in our moral decisions.

you can call it "Utilitarianian ethics" if you like, but that contains much more than what I can personally "hold"-- is based on rational thinking. How can this stunt our judgement, moral or any other kind? — Alkis Piskas

I won't object to your calling it rational thinking -- but I also reserve the right to call other moral systems rational. So where does that leave utilitarianism? They're all can be rational thinking.

Whenever you have only one measure to evaluate how moral your system is -- and that measure is the "greatest number of people" --it suppresses other reasoning that doesn't satisfy this one requirement. That's why I call it stunted moral reasoning.

The framing of the, one death is better than multiple deaths, scenario is an assumption that we can reduce suffering. Nietzsche and others argue strongly that life is full of suffering no matter how many of us are around to experience it.

However as it applies to political philosophy, we do feel we have some ability to control mass suffering by taking it unto ourselves or placing it on somebody else capable of containing the suffering.

Not always good means that it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues. — L'éléphant

I see. It's not good at all, then. It's useless. Because you can't use it sometimes only, as I said. Right?
OK. I can accept that. There are a lot of persons who refute ethics based "major good for the greatest number" (the so-called "Utilitarian" ethics or whatever). Well, that's why there exist various ethics theories and systems. What's yours? What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?

Your complete agreement with "greatest number" could be rejected based on specific situations. — L'éléphant

Do you mean cases like the "runaway train" case? Regarding that, you find "saving a greater number of people at the expense of one individual morally reprehensible". And that your "decision for it is to not intervene if it means sacrificing an innocent bystander who isn't even on the path where the train is going". Right?
OK, but have you read my examples? What if a number of people have no chances to survive, e.g. in a fire, a tempestuous sea, etc., and nothing is done? Shouldn't a fireman, lifeguard etc. who have chances to survive try to save some if not all of them, at a risk of their own lives?
A more local case: The war in Ukraine. Should the citizens try only to escape or hide, doing nothing to defend their cities and deliver them to the Russians? What about the millions who cannot escape and stay there to receive the Russian gunfire and bombs? This is not what is happening, is it? A few able citizens take their gun to fight the Russians at their cost of their lives and in order to save their city and their compatriots. (I don't mention the Ukrainian Army and soldiers, because it is their job to fight.)
Sorry, but I cannot accept staying idle in such situation as a moral solution. I cannot accept your "runaway train" attitude as moral. Besides, it's not enough to form an ethical theory or system by itself. So, to which ethical theory or system does it belong?

What if a number of people have no chances to survive, e.g. in a fire, a tempestuous sea, etc., and nothing is done? Shouldn't a fireman, lifeguard etc. who have chances to survive try to save some if not all of them, at a risk of their own lives? — Alkis Piskas

Sacrificing your own life to save others is a totally different moral position. Why? Because you are giving consent to your own involvement, even it it means death. The runaway train example, as I've already mentioned numerous times, has the element of sacrificing someone who does not give their permission to be sacrificed. They also did not cause the problem. (you know where we're going with this -- someone who caused the problem must answer to it morally, they have the moral culpability to be involved, if it means punishment).

And yes, we often, if not always, forget this one important element in moral evaluation -- consent.

Should the citizens try only to escape or hide, doing nothing to defend their cities and deliver them to the Russians? What about the millions who cannot escape and stay there to receive the Russian gunfire and bombs? This is not what is happening, is it? A few able citizens take their gun to fight the Russians at their cost of their lives and in order to save their city and their compatriots. — Alkis Piskas

See above. If the citizens would like to participate in the combat, and not follow the international protocol for civilians affected by the war, then they are contributing to the detriment of war. I'm speaking in general, not just the Russia-Ukraine war. We have in place international laws on how civilians should be treated and how civilians behave when their country is at war. If some citizens decide on their own volition to sacrifice their lives and help the army/military and police, morally speaking they are acting on their own consent.

Sacrificing your own life to save others is a totally different moral position. Why? Because you are giving consent to your own involvement, even it it means death — L'éléphant

I agree on this. We can exclude self-sacrifice and cases of consent, although they certainly contain a moral choice.
But what about my examples with doctors' decisions?

BTW, I have googled the "runaway train" dillemma and the "Trolley problem" appeared instead. I believe this is what you mean. So, in that problem, there are 5 people tied up on the tracks. The dilemma is 1) do nothing, in which case 5 people will be killed or 2) pull the lever, diverting the trolley onto the side track where it will kill a person. Well, there can be a lot of variations on this basic scenario, but the present one is not so realistic. Anyway, if the driver does nothing, he will most probably be reprimanded for killing these 5 people instead of trying in any way to avoid it by diverting the trolley. And in the specific case, there would only be one victim (at least this is what is known as certain).

I believe that there have been a lot of real situations in life like this one, not only with big vehicles but also with cars. And, excluding the cases in which the driver cannot do anything or has no time to react anyway, and assuming that the driver has relatively good reflexes and conttol, i.e., he does not react randomly, uncontrollably or thoughtlessly, he will try to avoid major damage. This is only too evident. It has to do with survival.

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the greatest number" is survival: the purpose of life. Any kind of morality must have this as purpose. The opposite of this is "major harm". And it is what should be avoided, in the examples brought up in this discussion.

Anyway, if the driver does nothing, he will most probably be reprimanded for killing these 5 people instead of trying in any way to avoid it by diverting the trolley. — Alkis Piskas

Not sure. Maybe he'll be reprimanded for not sticking to the scheme.

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the mojor number" is survival: the highest value, the greatest good in life. Any kind of morality must have this as purpose. — Alkis Piskas

And as I have already said, herein lies the problem. I feel like answering in nuggets:

The end justifies the means -- we all know the horror that have been brought to our societies.

The road to hell is paved with good intention -- this too.

His famous example of a trade-off scenario:

You are distributing a lifesaving drug. — Camille

No, this is overstating the case. It is not possible to save a life, nor to give a life, it is only possible to take a life.

The people who do get the medication might recover, or they might not, this is not in our hands. It is also not in our hands whether those who don't get the medication will die or not.

What is in our hands is the decision as to whether to kill or not.

The central element and purpose of ethics based on "major good for the mojor number" is survival — Alkis Piskas

Zombies are alive, technically.

Maybe he'll be reprimanded for not sticking to the scheme. — EugeneW

What scheme?

Zombies are alive, technically. — baker

Yes, Frankenstein's monster too.
Do you see maybe too many horror and fantasy movies?

The trolly scheme to collect travelers down the rail. Trollybus company bosses can be difficult... what if the driver knew he would loose his job?

Another question - Where would I draw the line if the one person in question was my daughter.
— T Clark

You would let a million die to dont let her die, wontya? — EugeneW

That's the reason why Buddhist monks have to literally turn their backs on friends and family, the preferred mindset for a bodhisattva can be reduced to this equation: friend = foe! Good luck with that!

Mulgere hircum! Non sono mica Mandrake!

I see that you keep critisizing or findng inadequate etchics based on "major good for the greatest number". That "it doesn't work as one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues", etc. OK. But you have still not answered my question: "What system, according to you can work as a one-size-fits-all solution to moral issues?"

In Buddhism, a bodhisattva (/ˌboʊdiːˈsʌtvə/ BOH-dee-SUT-və; Sanskrit: बोधिसत्त्व, Pali: बोधिसत्त) is any person who is on the path towards Buddhahood.

The Buddhahood of Man! Kill yourself to save the millions. Kill the millions to save yourself? Killemall? The eternal search for the supreme ethics. Eliminating the bad can be considered good but is it? Is a bad-free world of divine being preferable to a bad-loathed realm of sodogammoric torturing?

Eliminating the bad can be considered good but is it? — EugeneW

If nobody falls ill, doctors would be unemployed! :lol:

:lol:

Yes, they would. Would they truly wish everyone healthy? Would they sacrifice themselves for global health? Would they take the bullet?

The Codex Alimentarius will take care of their jobs... "All fall down, all fall down. Codex Alimentarius."

"Damned nurse Jetty, no customers today?"
"The more business for us, doctor Bonkers!"
"Nurse Jetty!"
"Doctor!"