Can it ever be morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for some greater good?

The world revolves around constant sacrifice. Every choice is the loss of another. The relinquishment of certain goods will, in turn, open new doors. In a world where everything is a commodity to be sold and re-sold, the word ‘sacrifice’ has lost its gravitas. Sure, we may lose a few things here and there in the deal, but we get something equally beneficial in return. A give and take, quid pro quo, an eye for an eye. When we are all vying for that greater good, every loss is justified and worthwhile, even when the loss is human — because as far as we can see, the pleasure of the majority must hold more weight than the pain of the minority. In this essay, I will be criticizing this very idea: the utilitarian notion that it is morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for some greater good is only rational in a society where all individuality has been erased. However, in examining the deeper intricacies of the situations where utilitarianism comes into play, it can be conceded that there are certain exceptions to this maxim.

What can be defined as the greater good? In utilitarian terms, it’s the principle of the maximum benefit of the maximum number of people. The notion of a greater good is so attractive because it suggests that the utopian idea of an ultimate moral maxim, where every question ever posed has an undebatable correct answer. Everything done for the achievement of the greater good will be legitimate precisely because the idea of it is all-encompassing. Nothing will ever be at the discretion of personal, subjective judgment when the greater good exists and especially when it is understood that the process of reaching for the greater good is a process of consistent betterment. It’s almost superfluous to explain that when we begin to make conscious and active choices to inch the world nearer and nearer to what is righteous and desirable, the society we live

in improves. The idea of the greater good effaces the imperfections and the trifling details of reconciliation — the union of everyone and everything under its panoptic, objective banner could very well be what we need to progress beyond conflicts founded on arbitrary constructs like race or sexuality.

The greater good calls into question the philosophy of utilitarianism, which states that the “morally right action is the action that produces the most good” according to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Bringing the greatest balance of pleasure over pain would be the correct way to actualize the idea of the greater good, where the vast majority must be at peace with the world. According to utilitarianism, then, it would make sense — indeed, it would be the only right thing to do — to sacrifice, or in other words, murder, an innocent person for the greater good. A death in the name of the greater good is a death that will ultimately serve to maximize the happiness of the greatest number of people. Seen through the lens of utilitarianism, then, it is perfectly morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for some greater good.

After all, why shouldn’t it be? The inherent value of a single individual, however blameless they are, pales in comparison to the quantity of happiness that could be gained as a result of their sacrifice. An innocent life ceases to hold any meaning when face-to-face with the possibility of rapprochement and harmony, the very thing that humanity has been trying to achieve since the moment we saw the first act of violence enacted against another human being. The truth is, people — just as virtuous and sinless as the sacrificed individual — have died for less. When we weigh the life of this individual against the millions of lives that were and will be lost in war with one another, the answer to this question becomes deceptively clear: it is absolutely morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for the greater good.

However, the notion that it is morally right to sacrifice an innocent person for the greater good suggests that human individuals are replaceable, and therefore expendable. In the words of John Rawls, “[Utilitarianism] is the consequence of extending to society the principle of choice for one man, and then, to make this extension work, conflating all persons into one…Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons”. Behind Rawl’s statement is the idea that, ultimately, the greater good is greater only because it embraces a society that is repressively homogeneous. And therefore, to believe that it is morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person for the greater good is to ignore their intrinsic value and treat them as a means to an end rather than respect them as an end in themselves. It is to erase the individuality and autonomy of the person, and to disregard the fact that they are an entity entirely separate from the idea of the greater good who does not have a duty to want the same things that society wants for them.

Let’s carry out a simple thought experiment. Imagine a world filled with robots that look and act in exactly the same way. One new robot is manufactured in a factory every day. Then imagine that you, a human, realize that the total destruction of a robot — identifiable by its serial number, A1 — will finally bring the greater good that society has been collectively working towards for all this time. Now consider the consequences of dismantling A1, who has the same physical, intellectual, and emotional traits as all the other robots of this society. The manpower that is lost by the deconstruction of A1 will be quickly replaced by another robot who is able to carry out the same things that A1 did. In short, nothing will be lost, and it will be as if A1 never even needed to exist. If there were other humans in this world with you, no one would disagree that the loss of A1 is a small price to pay for the actualization of the greater good, and there would be no ethical problem with its destruction. It is dispensable, and there are thousands of other robots that would seamlessly take its place. This example makes it clear that the only circumstance in which it would be morally acceptable to sacrifice someone for the greater good is when we believe that they are replaceable, a tool to bring something into fruition. It would only be in a dystopian society where absolute homogeneity for the sake of the greater good is fostered and encouraged.

Rawls, however, claims that there may be exceptions to the idea that it is never morally acceptable to sacrifice an innocent person, as “various basic rights may be traded off against each other for the sake of obtaining the largest possible system of rights”. Rawls believes that the sacrifice of the rights of the minority can be justified in the name of the rights of the majority. It is undoubtedly undesirable, but may be required. For instance, private ownership of property is a basic right, but it should be disclaimed when it harms others. Similarly, during the coronavirus pandemic, many citizens willingly relinquished many basic rights such as the right to go outside freely and not wear a mask. The surrender of these rights by the citizens is ultimately what allowed for the gradual lift of the COVID-19 bans. The sacrifice of personal freedom for the greater good, though not advisable, can be appropriate in specific contexts.

Nevertheless, the position of Rawls begs the question: is there a line that can be drawn between sacrifice and murder? G.E.M. Anscombe, in “Mr Truman’s Degree”, answers that “choosing to kill the innocent as a means to your ends is always murder … Killing the innocent, even if you know as a matter of statistical certainty that the things you do involve it, is not necessarily murder … On the other hand, unscrupulousness in considering the possibilities turns it into murder”. In a war, it is often necessary to sacrifice a few in order to prevent the unnecessary death of many. If innocents were sacrificed to protect the freedom of a country in this fictional war — Rawls’s largest possible system of rights — it would not be murder, according to Anscombe. It is only when the conscious decision to kill innocents is made with the knowledge that a certain population would be slaughtered as collateral damage. When it is only the working-class and the marginalized citizens who are sacrificed in a war between bigger powers, and when said bigger powers are aware that only those on the bottom rungs of the societal ladder will be affected and yet make the decision to sacrifice the minority anyway, it is murder.

Anscombe’s ideas become evidently relevant in today’s society — when capitalism takes the center stage, the idea of morality is put on the back burner. A human individual does not matter so much when confronted with the opportunity to exchange that life for something bigger and ostensibly better. It’s a small expense, considering the profit margin. It is presumptuous to declare that any sacrifice of the innocent in the name of the greater good is immediately and unquestionably immoral, as there are instances where it has been proved otherwise. However, there is a line that shouldn’t be crossed between self-sacrifice and exploitation that has been violently and even confidently crossed by the society we live in now. Ours is a capitalist world that indiscriminately and disproportionately sacrifices the minority in order to feed the vicious consumerist cycle — even me, writing this essay on my computer in the comfort of my room is a bystander and a moral accomplice, not ignorant but still complicit.

References Driver, Julia. “The History of Utilitarianism (Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy).”

Stanford.edu, 2014, plato.stanford.edu/entries/utilitarianism-history/. Accessed 16 Jan. 2023.

G.E.M. Anscombe, “Mr Truman’s Degree”, in her Collected Philosophical Papers, vol. III (Ethics, Religion and Politics), Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press, 1981, p.66.

Rawls, John. A Theory of Justice. Belknap Press, 200

---

Writer : Nahye, Lee

Chadwick Songdo International School

Brown University

Awards : IPO 2022 Honourable Mention

IPO 국내예선 금상

Ayn Rand - Second Place