Philosophy Puzzles → Ethics → All Or Nothing

All Or Nothing

Let’s say you have two choices:

Do something that is morally wrong
Do something that is not morally wrong.

If I asked you to choose which choice would be the better thing to do morally, which one would you choose? It must be the case that anyone would have to choose the second option, right? Well, it might not be as obvious as it seems… Consider the following case:

Two strangers are about to be crushed by a collapsing building. There are only three options available to you: do nothing, save one stranger by allowing your arms to be permanently crushed, or save both strangers by allowing your arms to be permanently crushed. Let’s examine the situation closer.

Some Guy (IDK)

Some Guy was an American philosopher. He held the Joseph Pellegrino University Professorship at Harvard University, and was president of the American Philosophical Association

Keywords:

Firstly, let’s consider the option of doing nothing. This option seems morally permissible. That is, it would not be morally wrong to do nothing. Most people would agree that you have the valuable right of keeping both of your arms instead of saving the stranger(s). Keeping your arms, after all, is quite important to your quality of life! Okay, so the option of doing nothing is not morally wrong.

Let’s consider the option of saving one stranger. This seems morally wrong. Why? Because the third option would allow you to save both strangers by giving up the exact same cost (both of your arms). It would simply be cruel to save only one of the strangers!

Now this is interesting. It seems that saving nobody is morally permissible, while saving only one stranger is morally wrong. However, it seems that saving one stranger would be more morally righteous than saving nobody, wouldn’t it? Surely it would be better that one stranger lives than have both of them die! This is the heart of the problem. On the one hand, it seems that saving nobody is not wrong, while saving only one person is wrong. On the other hand, it seems that saving one life is more righteous than saving no lives.

What is your response? Do you see any way out of this tricky situation? Here’s a possible solution:

Some philosophers would say that saving one person is not actually morally wrong, and instead morally permissible (the same level morally as saving nobody and keeping your arms). A possible reason for this would be to say that you are still saving somebody. That is, you are still giving up both of your arms to save a stranger’s life. However, this reasoning may still raise some skepticism. It still seems that it is hard to morally justify why you would not save both strangers if you choose to save only one.

All Or Nothing

References

Further Reading

Glossary