Utilitarianism holds that only the consequences of an action determine whether it is right or wrong. For that reason, it is considered a consequentialist theory. Utilitarians believe that any action that results in greater total happiness is right, whereas any action that leads to greater unhappiness is wrong. Sometimes this belief is summed up as "the greatest good for the greatest number."

Question

Prisoners from minority populations in Chinese detainment camps are being used as sources for organ harvesting, sometimes when the detainees are still alive. The Wall Street Journal reported that detainees of marginalized groups, such as the Falun Gong and Uighur Muslims, are targeted; their organs are fueling an estimated $1-billion transplant industry in China (Rogers, 2019).

Allegations of forced organ harvesting first surfaced in 2001. An international tribunal determined these operations are still occurring, if only because of the "impossibility of there being anything like sufficient 'eligible donors' under the recently formed PRC [People's Republic of China] voluntary donor scheme" for the number of transplants known to be performed (Rogers, 2019). Survivors of detention camps say they were examined to make sure their organs were healthy. One doctor who performed an organ removal recalled how he once extracted an organ from a living person. It is worth noting, however, that a single organ donor can save up to eight people, and a single tissue donor can enhance the lives of up to 50 people.

As you compose your initial post, respond to one or more of the following questions.

Would a utilitarian be in favor of forced organ harvesting? Why or why not?
What if the people whose organs were being harvested were all convicted murderers who had been sentenced to the death penalty? Does it make any difference whether someone is innocent or guilty? write a short response

Answer 1

From a utilitarian perspective, the morality of forced organ harvesting would be evaluated primarily based on its consequences for overall happiness and well-being. Utilitarians argue that actions should maximize positive outcomes for the greatest number of people. In the case of organ harvesting from prisoners in Chinese detainment camps, a utilitarian might contend that if the organs are used to save multiple lives, the act could be seen as producing a net gain in overall happiness, especially if those saved would otherwise have no access to suitable organ donors.

However, this reasoning quickly becomes complex. The act of forcibly harvesting organs from individuals without consent violates fundamental human rights and inflicts deep suffering on the victims and their families. The trauma and societal implications of normalizing such practices could lead to greater overall unhappiness and erode trust in medical institutions and governments. Thus, many utilitarians would ultimately argue against forced organ harvesting because the long-term negative consequences and suffering it creates outweigh the temporary benefits of saving a few lives.

When considering the scenario where the organ donors are all convicted murderers sentenced to death, the utilitarian calculus might shift slightly. Some might argue that since these individuals have committed grave offenses, their organs could be viewed as a resource that could save innocent lives, thereby maximizing overall happiness. However, this still raises significant ethical concerns about justice, consent, and the value of human life, regardless of the individual's past actions. A core principle of utilitarianism is the need for fairness and equitable treatment for all, which could argue against any form of coerced organ harvesting.

In conclusion, whether the individuals targeted are innocent or guilty, utilitarianism would likely oppose forced organ harvesting due to the broader implications for human rights, societal trust, and overall happiness. The potential benefits do not justify the ethical violations and suffering involved.