When Ethics Itself Becomes a Question: Can Some Thought Experiments Be Immoral?
Is It Right to Even Ask Such a Question? A Common Man’s Doubt About a Philosopher’s Example
When I listened to Dr Michael Sandel’s lecture on justice and ethics [https://youtu.be/0O2Rq4HJBxw?si=3qWD5ISrFWYPG76V], I was shocked to hear one example he gave. He spoke about three imaginary situations where one person is killed to save five others. One example was about a healthy man who went to the hospital for a regular check-up. The doctor thinks of killing him to take his organs and save five patients who are seriously ill.
I was not only surprised but also disturbed. For me, the issue is not whether this is right or wrong. The very fact that such an example is used for teaching ethics itself feels unethical.
Even a simple, uneducated person in any Indian village would immediately say, “This is wrong.” Then how can a world-famous university like Harvard allow such an example to be discussed by such a respected philosopher?
Do we really need such examples?
I understand that philosophers try to push our thinking to the extreme. They want us to ask difficult questions to test our values and beliefs. But still, there should be a limit.
Why should we even talk about something that no doctor would do, no hospital would allow, and no law or society would accept?
Before we even reach any conclusion in such a discussion, the logic of the example itself fails:
- How do we know the five sick people will survive even after getting the organs?
- How can the doctor be sure the healthy man’s organs will match?
- Who will give permission for this? The hospital? The staff? The family?
- What if the doctor just wants to make more money by keeping five patients in the hospital instead of sending one healthy man home?
There are too many questions that show this example is not practical or sensible—even before we talk about whether it is moral.
Our Indian way of thinking
In India, we also talk about sacrifice. In many stories, even in the Mahabharata and the Gita, one person gives up something for the good of the family, society, or even the country. But that is not the same as utilitarianism (doing something just for maximum result).
In Indian thought:
- The idea of sarva bhuta hita (welfare of all beings) is important.
- At the same time, we are told to follow our own conscience when we are confused about right and wrong.
- Ethics is not always black or white—it depends on the situation, the person, and their dharma.
Even though Indian texts discuss complex moral problems, they never support killing one innocent person like this—even in imagination.
So what is my problem here?
I am not saying philosophers should not ask questions. I am not against Harvard or Dr Sandel. I am just saying that some questions should not be asked in this way.
Because the moment we ask whether we can kill an innocent person to save five others, we are already crossing a line—even if it is only a classroom example.
Ethics is not just about clever arguments or winning a debate. Ethics is about people, about life. So we must be careful not only about the answers we give—but also the questions we ask.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a place for pushing the boundaries of illustration to clarify a question of logic or ethics. However, what can be done with logic cannot always be done with ethics. For example, consider this classic syllogism: “God is love; love is blind; therefore, God is blind.” Logically, this is structurally valid—even though it is absurd—because no ethical weight is involved. But the same kind of reductive reasoning becomes problematic when applied to ethical matters.
There are too many questions that show this example is not practical or sensible—even before we talk about whether it is moral.
Our Indian way of thinking
In India, we also talk about sacrifice. In many stories, even in the Mahabharata and the Gita, one person gives up something for the good of the family, society, or even the country. But that is not the same as utilitarianism (doing something just for maximum result).
In Indian thought:
- The idea of sarva bhuta hita (welfare of all beings) is important.
- At the same time, we are told to follow our own conscience when we are confused about right and wrong.
- Ethics is not always black or white—it depends on the situation, the person, and their dharma.
Even though Indian texts discuss complex moral problems, they never support killing one innocent person like this—even in imagination.
So what is my problem here?
I am not saying philosophers should not ask questions. I am not against Harvard or Dr Sandel. I am just saying that some questions should not be asked in this way.
Because the moment we ask whether we can kill an innocent person to save five others, we are already crossing a line—even if it is only a classroom example.
Ethics is not just about clever arguments or winning a debate. Ethics is about people, about life. So we must be careful not only about the answers we give—but also the questions we ask.
It is important to acknowledge that there is a place for pushing the boundaries of illustration to clarify a question of logic or ethics. However, what can be done with logic cannot always be done with ethics. For example, consider this classic syllogism: “God is love; love is blind; therefore, God is blind.” Logically, this is structurally valid—even though it is absurd—because no ethical weight is involved. But the same kind of reductive reasoning becomes problematic when applied to ethical matters.
Take this example: in situations involving violence or trauma, a victim may use a rhetorical appeal such as, “Imagine this happened to your own daughter or sister,” to awaken empathy and provoke a moral response. This kind of illustration is ethically acceptable because it appeals to a shared human sensitivity. But if, in an effort to win an argument, someone were to say, “What if I were to do the same to your daughter or sister?”—even hypothetically—it crosses an ethical boundary. Such a statement causes unnecessary emotional harm to an uninvolved person and undermines the very ethical principle it seeks to highlight. While every illustration must be evaluated in context, the ethical line should not be crossed merely to push an argument to its extreme. Logic may stretch boundaries, but ethics demands restraint.
Final thought
Freedom of thought is important. But freedom should also come with responsibility. Just like we don’t joke about someone’s death or illness, we should not casually use examples where an innocent life is taken—even for the sake of argument.
In ethics, how we begin the discussion is just as important as how we end it.
Ashram, June 26, 2025
Leave a Reply