Thought Experiment: Fairness
By howhigh
@howhigh (757)
Canada
April 24, 2007 8:15am CST
This is a famous example from Taurek.
Suppose you have all of the supply of some medicine and there are 6 people essentially dead but they can be cured with the meds. There is a problem. One person needs all of it to survive and the other five each need 1/5th. What is the fairest way to distrabute the meds?
1 person likes this
3 responses
@andreaskye (390)
• United States
24 Apr 07
Very Good Topic!
I am going to have to go with the 5 that can be saved, unless, that is the sixth holds a knowledge essential to humankind. What if he holds the knowledge to make the meds to help others who contract this "illness" or the cure to cancer?
So fairness could be to all of humankind as opposed to the 5 others ill.
@howhigh (757)
• Canada
2 May 07
Okay well theres been some times now since i started this and it doesn't seem to be getting any traction so i'll give my answer. I would decide randomly by flipping a coin because each group deserves to live equally. I don't think 3 people have more of a right to live than 1 person and for me as a 3rd party I have no right to make that value judgment. So i won't and I'll flip a coin. I don't know how to justify any other answer.
@andreaskye (390)
• United States
2 May 07
Had not seen your reply until today.
Well, if you are in the place of the man that holds the meds and knowledge that really flips the whole script, doesn't it?
I would like to say i would save the other 5 but once again, do I hold some kind of key to helping humanity. On the other hand I (he) could always share the knowledge. There is really no answer, and a million at the same time.
@Tanya8 (1733)
• Canada
25 May 07
It's funny; I was just listening to a debate on Germany's decision not to authorize the government to shoot down planes that had been taken over by terrorists, to prevent them from crashing in a way that would take more lives.
I agreed with the decision, but with this moral scenario, it seems to me that the 5 should be given the medicine.
I think there's a difference between actively killing people, and letting an injured or sick person die through non action, if there's a good reason for not taking action.
In the plane scenario, the people would be used as a means to an end. In the sickness scenario, no action is performed on the 6th person. It was his or her bad luck to be the worst off; it could have happened to anyone, so the medicine should be shared among the people who only need a 1/5 of it to survive.
@Opalrose (46)
• Australia
24 May 07
In reality, one needs to make a decision. I would go with the 5. Life is about Hope and survival of the species. There is always choice. I agree with the other writers, put yourself in the position. How would you cope? What would you do? There is a reason that human beings have survived, despite our best attempts to sabotage ourselves.
