Rights, utilitarianism, and runaway trains

1. Utilitarians seem to be committed to some surprising conclusions about the morality of

killing. Illustrate one or two of these conclusions, and try to explain why utilitarians hold such
surprising views.
Surprising conclusions especially in the Total View branch of Utilitarianism. This view gives equal
support both for not killing and for creating extra happy lives.
Total View
Comes to the conclusion that killing is wrong because it decreases the amount of utility in the
world, by the same logic by failing to bring someone into existence you're decreasing the world of
utility.
Contraception
For this reason contraception is viewed as wrong, banning or ceasing contraception would put a
great strain on the world as the population would soar.
Population
Therefore we would be driven towards massive overpopulation, with relatively poor quality lives.
Replaceable
In the T.V it is completely a justified technique to restore utility. You may kill a happy child if you
intend to have another child who will be just as happy. Surprising -> intrinsically negative feeling of
killing & questions individuality
The 'total view' version of utilitarianism says that in determining the morality of an action, what
matters is the grand total of happiness or preference satisfaction created by that action, including
future beings who do not yet exist. The 'prior existence view' on the other hand says that when
determining the morality of an action, one need only consider the utility of beings who already exist
or who will exist no matter what I do.

2. Does Judith Jarvis Thomson maintain that all rights are absolute or infinitely stringent?
Why/why not? Justify your answer with reference to her Illness example.
Thomson maintain that not all rights are absolute or infinitely stringent. In her Illness example,
where the taking of the drug which is someone’s private property in order to save the sick child is
an illustration of how rights need not be absolute constraints. In situations of dire need, it might be
permissible to infringe a right. Thomson argues that what this case shows is that although the
owner's property rights have been infringed, that is morally justifiable in this case. In other words,
although the owner does have a property right, that right is not absolute: sometimes, argues
Thomson, the right thing to do is to act against someone's rights. The fact that the child will die if
we do not take the drug. Thomson thinks that a right can be infringed if the consequences of not
doing so would be very bad (how bad the consequences need to be depends on the 'stringency' of
the right). In this case, the consequences are the death of a child -- which is bad enough to justify
infringing the owner's property right.
So in the case of Illness, taking the drug is thought to infringe someone’s property rights, but not to
violate them – because to take the drug is not wrong, in the circumstances.

3. What should a utilitarian think about rights? Do rights really exist? For a utilitarian, would
it ever be justified to respect rights, even if that led to a worse outcome overall?
Utilitarians' want to achieve the best outcome, they believe pain is intrinsically bad and pleasure is
intrinsically good.
-They reject absolute rights
-End > means
Lying would not be seen by U as intrinsically bad
Rights only exist if we all agree to follow them as constraints of our behaviour

2. Rights Utilitarians Support

Rights that promote welfare ->Liberty and political

2. Self defence
+ As most people have a preference to feel safe and in control of their lives

2. Poor Outcomes
War -> used as a defence strategy, not always imminent, proportional and necessary
"Right to Bear Arms"-> essentially the right to self defence used to justify guns & leads to a great
amount of death

4. Explain why Judith Jarvis Thomson thinks that considerations to do with the contextual
circumstances of track workers might be relevant to our moral deliberations about Trolley
and Transplant.
Judith Jarvis Thomson believes that it is important to consider the contextual circumstances of track
workers, as it helps explain the moral distinctions between “Trolley” and “Transplant”. She
suggests that killing is only permissible if there is a time where unanimous consent is achieved. For
“Trolley”, if all workers are assigned by the lot, it is to everyone’s advantage prior to the allocation
pull the lever and kill the one, rather than letting the five die, as every worker would have a 5/6
chance of survival. However, if there is a fixed-allocation, like a Beam-Fitter, who is automatically
assigned to be on the potentially lethal track, there is no time in which pulling the lever is
unanimously preferred, as the chances of him being killed is 100%. “Transplant” follows suit, it is
impermissible to kill the healthy patient in order to harvest his organs and save the five ill patients,
as it is unreasonable to assume that the healthy patient would have given consent for the doctor to
proceed, thus, failing to reach unanimity. Furthermore, to remain healthy, most people would adopt
healthy lifestyles and behaviours, however, if being less healthy increases the chances of survival in
“Transplant”, it may promote unhealthy policies and potentially punish people for maintaining their
health. This notion, evidently, conflicts with our moral intuition. Thus, Thomson believes that it is
important to consider the contextual circumstances in our moral deliberations.