According to act utilitarianism, is it morally permissible to kill the healthy donor to save five?

According to act utilitarianism, is it morally permissible to kill the healthy donor to save five?

• A. Yes, it would maximize overall good
• B. No, never
• C. Only if the donor's family agrees
• D. It depends on government policy

Answer: (A)

Act utilitarianism judges a moral act by its consequences, specifically by whether it produces the greatest overall welfare. If killing the healthy donor to save five would create a larger total amount of well-being than leaving things as they are, then the act is morally permissible from this viewpoint. The key idea is that the rightness of an action hinges on the outcome for everyone affected, not on whether the person is innocent or whether someone’s consent is given, unless those outcomes influence overall welfare. So, if the net balance of happiness or welfare is higher with the donor killed to save five, act utilitarianism would sanction that act. The other options introduce constraints (consent, policy) that aren’t part of the outcome-based calculation, which is why they don’t fit the act utilitarian framework.

Act utilitarianism judges a moral act by its consequences, specifically by whether it produces the greatest overall welfare. If killing the healthy donor to save five would create a larger total amount of well-being than leaving things as they are, then the act is morally permissible from this viewpoint. The key idea is that the rightness of an action hinges on the outcome for everyone affected, not on whether the person is innocent or whether someone’s consent is given, unless those outcomes influence overall welfare. So, if the net balance of happiness or welfare is higher with the donor killed to save five, act utilitarianism would sanction that act. The other options introduce constraints (consent, policy) that aren’t part of the outcome-based calculation, which is why they don’t fit the act utilitarian framework.