Utilitarianism as defined by John Stuart Mill is the greatest happiness principle. The greatest happiness meaning “Whatever will bring about the best outcome in all situations.” A widely used example for this theory is the train that can either hit 5 people killing them (or more) or the 1 person, only killing one. Opponents sometimes say that they will not kill either and that because of this it makes the principle at fault because killing in general is never a good thing and one should not kill at all. However, they look past the factor of reality. In reality if this were the case, one of the two options would have to go. I believe that killing is not moral either, but that if it came down to necessarily having to kill, I would do so in the best way possible that would bring about the greatest happiness to any given group or community (even if it meant that the 1 person had to be me).
One argument against this example is one that asks “So, what if the 5 were just ordinary men, but the 1 had the cure to save millions and at the current time there was a disease or plague that had swept the current country?” Well, then obviously I would save the 1 since the 5 are unable to save as many as the one who certainly can save the millions. The way that this question is phrased seems to invoke emotion if anything and not only that, but attempts to rip down the very foundations of utilitarianism. It seems to want to say something like “So, what if that was your best friend or family member? Would you still kill them?” Yes, because in doing so, you would bring about another family’s happiness. Utilitarianism does not distinguish between one human being better than another and in the same extent does not value another human being more so simply because of relation to them. If anything, this sort of a question is letting human emotion get in the way of how a just situation should be handled. It also seems to show a hint of prejudice on the agent’s part due to how much value they place on one than another.
In conclusion, even if the human I must kill to save the many in a given situation is a best friend, family member, or any person I may value more or another person may value more, I would definitely kill them for the greater good. I do so because I do not distinguish between who is better than another according to societal beliefs nor do I let my emotions get in the way of what must be done. This is also how I see any person (agent) should go about any given situation such as this where they would have to kill one or the other.
