Consider: you are one of the five people in this scenario, but you do not know which of the five you are. If the one is killed, you have a 20% chance of dying. If the three are allowed to die, you have a 60% chance of dying. If the one is killed, you are more likely to survive the scenario.
If everybody has a right to live, a single persons life is infinitely valuable. Thus the single persons life is equally(=infinitely) valuable as the three other persons infinitely valuable lives
A governance policy should appeal to the greater good. Morality is in the numbers, so saving 3 would justify killing one. On a personal level though, the act itself is the problem. I cannot take another human life, regardless of the reward, because it is not mine to take, nor my right to choose.
Everybody has different morals. Morals are based on personal experience/preception. Someone whos morals state that people deserve to die, choosing to kill 3 over 1 would be the morally right choice to make -for that person-
The premise is subjective. Instead of moral, it should be ethic.
This utilitarian argument assumes that each life is of equal moral worth to save. Suppose that the three lives you would save are of convicted criminals, and the life you would have to take is of a newborn baby.
You would have to know for certain that you can prevent three deaths by killing someone else, otherwise you would be gambling with an innocent person's life. You would need to be omniscient to be certain. Taking a leap of faith with innocent people's lives is immoral.
Since measuring a life's or an individual's worth is an unsolved problem, you cannot ascertain which situation would produce the best result. This is valid for any metrics, even life count, as the one person you would kill could potentially saves many lives in the future.
The deaths of three people are generally a worse outcome than the death of one person. If three people are saved as one dies, the net effect of this action is that two additional lives are spared over having done nothing.
This can't apply to all, depends. This will depends who will be killed, or who will be saved. This also depends, which side you are on. Consider these: 1) 3 gangs vs a lady with gun; 2) a gang is shooting to 3 police. 3) in a battle war zone. 3 vs 1 are enemy side, and you are either side's ally.
Are you morally correct if you're killing the person posing the threat to 3 lives? Are you morally correct if you're killing an innocent bystander that's exchanged for 3 lives? The question can also be read like you're taking 1 of the 3 lives...
If you don't do it, it's not really your fault, nobody has to know about the deal, and if you kill someone its on you and they will probably ignore the 3 people and arrest you for the 1 because our court system is flawed in such a way that allows this to happen.
If the same logic is repeated, you would have to kill the three people you saved too. If you keep doing this, you will kill everyone on Earth. Therefore, the best solution is suicide.
The death of one person to save three does not necessarily mean that the murder of one person outside of this situation will result in three lives being spared, nor that there is a moral imperative to murder. Even if you accept that every person alive will be involved in the dilemma, it is incontrovertible that the rate of deaths if one person dies instead of three will reduce to 1/3 of the outcome where the three people die instead of one.
shadowpulse
Imagine if you were in the waiting room at a hospital waiting for a friend. A doctor comes over, kills you, takes your organs, with those organs he saves three peoples lives.
Its different now, all depending on the fact that it would be someone physically doing something to cause it
le_9k_redditor
