Perspectives from John Taurek in Should the Numbers Count - Book Report/Review Example

Name: Tutor: Course: Date: Utilitarianism: Perspectives from John Taurek in “Should the Numbers Count?” Utilitarianism is an approach to normative ethics that holds that the best moral act is one that achieves maximum utility. It takes an impersonal standpoint whereby one is required to determine which of a variety of courses of action can yield the greatest happiness to the largest number of people, and take action accordingly. However, in an article titled “Should the Numbers Count?”, John Taurek raises suspicion regarding the possibility of making such judgements that aim at yielding the greatest happiness for the biggest number of people. In Taurek’s view, when one has no personal tie to any of the individuals involved, all that he or she needs to do is flip a coin to determine whether to use some limited resource in such a way as to help one person, or five. Based on this line of thinking, the number of people to be helped does not matter since everyone deserves a chance to be happy. This essay will thus argue that Taurek views utilitarianism to be incoherent in some ways – that utilitarianism fails to appreciate the notion of fairness – even though it may be morally correct. Utilitarians maintain that in a situation in which there is need to choose between alternatives that can help a certain a number of people, it is important to consider the option that should save the greatest number of people (Peterson 357). This is because doing so would lead to the maximum wellbeing for the people involved. For instance, in case two houses, one with one person and another with five people catch fire, then a person who does not have any personal relation with any of the individuals in the houses on fire, and having limited resources, should make an effort to save the five people since this will amount to doing the greatest good. The notion here is that a person with an impersonal view who is involved in the rescue effort (for instance a fire service) should be able to make a consideration that leads to saving the lives of as many people as possible. In this case, the fire service personnel should consider rescuing the five people instead of one person since by doing so they end up making more people happy. However, John Taurek critiques such an approach, which he deems to be unfair to the minority groups (such as the one individual in a fire incident who according to utilitarianism should be left to die while saving five individuals). In “Should the Numbers Count?”, Taurek agrees that resource limitations make it difficult to help everyone. As well, the author notes that there is always need for people to choose between giving benefits to some people, or averting some forms of harm from occurring to them, and giving benefits to or averting harms from occurring to some people. As indicated by Taurek, it is rarely possible to do both (293). Therefore, the question that arises in such a situation where choices have to be made between helping some people and leaving others because of resource limitations is whether the relative number of people in question should be a significant consideration in determining the kind of action to be taken. The conclusion made by Taurek is that the number of people involved should not be a consideration in making choices in regard to whom to save in a scenario where it is not possible to spare or prevent all people from being affected by harm (293-294). Similar to the example of fire incidents that was used above, Taurek uses the example of some life-saving drug that is to be used to save six people who are affected differently. These six people will surely die if the drug is not administered to them. Among the six people, one requires the entire drug in order to survive. Each of the remaining five patients requires only 20 percent of the drug to survive (294). This means that there are two trade-offs: one option is to give the entire to drug to the one patient who requires the full dose of the drug and thus leave the other five to die. The other option is to give a fifth (20 percent) of the drug to each of the five patients who require this amount to survive, and in doing so, leave the patient who requires the full drug to die. From a utilitarian perspective, the latter approach would be preferable: administer the drug in such a way that it saves the lives of as many people as possible. Ultimately, based on this point of view, apportioning the drug to each of the five people who require a fifth of the drug would lead to saving the lives of five people while leaving one to die. From a utilitarian standpoint, this will have achieved the objective of offering the ‘greatest happiness to the largest number of people’. As Taurek points out, those who support such an approach will hold the view that “other things being equal, or special considerations apart, one ought to save the greater number” of people (295). Taurek’s bone of contention with the above way of thinking, that is, a utilitarian way of offering solutions where trade-offs are required, is that it is an unfair approach. From Taurek’s perspective, the mere fact that more people can be saved using the drug is not an adequate reason for totally disregarding the one person who also requires the entire drug (296-297). This is because every person should be granted some possibility of being able to recover when the drug is administered to them, and as noted by Peterson, every individual has a morally significant interest that needs to be given some weight (357). As such, it cannot be expressly said that saving the lives of five people is far better than saving the life of one person. Similarly, it cannot be said that saving the life of one person is better than saving the lives of five people. Despite Taurek’s argument above, he also acknowledges that people will have different views on what action should be taken where a trade-off is required if they have some personal relations with those affected. For instance, assume that the person who requires the entire drug is called Tom. Tom is a friend to the owner of the drug while the other five are strangers. In such a scenario, the drug’s owner may consider it morally right to give the drug to Tom because of their personal relations. However, some people will view this to be morally wrong since it is biased toward the other five patients. What if the drug belongs to Tom and Tom is asked to give it to the other five people who are strangers to him? Tom would be astounded as to why he should give the drug to the other people to save their lives instead of saving his own. From an impartial point of view however, Taurek notes that it would be unfair to give preference to one group over another based on the number of individuals affected (295). The advice given by Taurek with regard to making choices where limited resources are involved, is to use probability so as to give every one an equal chance of being happy or improving their wellbeing. Taurek argues that since all people such as the six patients highlighted above have significant moral interests, the best way to intervene in offering them help is to toss a fair coin. Such a lottery would present every individual with an equal likelihood of being rescued or helped (Peterson 357). Taurek is made to arrive at the option of using a lottery due to the realisation that human beings are not objects. If one were to rescue objects from a burning house for instance, Taurek argues that the person would consider the value of the objects and go for those that have more value relative to others. But when it comes to human beings, such an approach cannot be applied because the rescuer will empathise with the victims. The empathy is driven by the fact that each of the victims is deeply concerned about what will happen to him or her (306-307). In the same vein, Immanuel Kant believed that every person “has a fundamental human dignity that gives the person value beyond price” (Velasquez 484). This means that human life cannot be valued, and as such, based on Taurek’s stance, it would be erroneous to say that some human lives deserve to be saved or protected more than others. In conclusion, although utilitarianism holds that the best moral act is one that attains maximum utility and involves bringing happiness to the greatest number of people, this notion is erroneous according to John Taurek. Taurek’s standpoint is that utilitarianism fails to appreciate the concept of fairness when making choices that affect human beings when faced with limited resources. While utilitarianism holds that the limited resources should used to ensure that the largest number of people benefit, Taurek, like Kant, emphasises the need to consider the value of each person rather than the number of people involved. As such, Taurek is of the opinion that in a situation where there are limited resources, an impartial approach should involve a lottery of some sort to determine who benefits from the resources so that every affected person has an equal chance. Works Cited Peterson, Martin. “The Mixed Solution to the Number Problem”. Ethics and Moral Philosophy. Ed. Thom Brooks. Leiden: Koninklijke Brill NV, 2000. 357-370. Taurek, John M. “Should the Numbers Count?” Philosophy and Public Affairs 6.4. (1977): 293-316. Velasquez, Manuel. Philosophy: A Text with Readings. 10th Ed. Belmont, CA: Thomas Higher Education, 2008. Read More