This question refers to the ethical issue of giving organ transplants to prisoners who have been sentenced to prison for the commission of crimes. From a utilitarian perspective, which of the following is an argument against allowing prisoners to receive organ transplants?


Prisoners have violated the rules of society and, therefore, that have no moral right to receive benefits from society.

It would be better for society to allocate scarce organs to non-prisoners who could contribute more to society than prisoners could contribute.

After they have served their punishment for their crimes, prisoners will be entitled to be treated as ends in themselves.

There is a moral duty of autonomy for prisoners to choose to receive organ transplants, but that moral duty is outweighed by the moral duty of justice.

I believe its D

I disagree. That's not a utilitarian point of view.

C makes more of a applied anwser since its to be entitled to be treated as ends in themselves

Actually from a maximum utility benefit/cost point of view, I should think B would be the winner.

I agree with you, Damon.

From a utilitarian perspective, the best course of action is determined by the overall balance of benefits and harms to society. To determine the argument against allowing prisoners to receive organ transplants, we need to analyze each option in relation to this perspective.

Option A argues that prisoners, by violating the rules of society, have forfeited their moral right to receive benefits from society. This viewpoint implies that the overall benefit to society would be diminished by allocating organs to prisoners. However, this argument does not directly consider the potential overall benefits from providing organ transplants to prisoners. Therefore, it might not align with a utilitarian perspective.

Option B suggests that it would benefit society more to allocate organs to non-prisoners who can contribute more to society. This argument focuses on maximizing overall societal benefit. From a utilitarian perspective, if the long-term benefits to society from giving organs to non-prisoners outweigh the benefits of giving organs to prisoners, this could be seen as a valid argument against allowing prisoners to receive organ transplants.

Option C states that after serving their punishment for their crimes, prisoners are entitled to be treated as ends in themselves. This argument acknowledges that prisoners should be treated with dignity and respect, emphasizing the moral duty to provide medical care regardless of their status as prisoners. From a utilitarian perspective, this viewpoint supports the idea that providing organ transplants to prisoners, once they have paid their dues to society, may be justified to promote the overall well-being and happiness of society.

Option D proposes that while prisoners have the moral autonomy to choose to receive organ transplants, this moral duty is outweighed by the moral duty of justice. This argument implies that justice should take precedence over individual autonomy in the case of organ transplants for prisoners. Again, from a utilitarian perspective, this viewpoint may be seen as valid if it is believed that overall societal well-being and happiness would be maximized by prioritizing justice over individual autonomy in this context.

Considering the analysis above, Option B, "It would be better for society to allocate scarce organs to non-prisoners who could contribute more to society than prisoners could contribute," seems to align most directly with a utilitarian perspective. However, it is important to note that this is a subjective and complex ethical issue with multiple perspectives and considerations.