A doctor in an emergency room only has five doses left of a very scarce medicine. In an unusual scenario, she’s left with six patients who need the drug to survive. One patient is critically ill and requires all five doses of the medicine. The others need a single amount. Should the doctor divide up the drug and let the one patient die? Is saving five lives better than saving one? What if the one critically ill patient is a scientist who is on the verge of discovering the cure for cancer? If he stays alive, he will save millions of people from dying.

A patient who has been in an automobile accident with serious injuries is admitted to a hospital. The patient can be saved if there is an operation. The doctor notices that the patient is an organ donor. Five other people in the hospital need his organs at that very moment. They all will die without his vital organs—the ones he’s chosen to donate. These other patients have been waiting for months for a human just like him. He’s the one with the vital organs who, we are assuming, are a match for the ones they need. The doctor must choose to operate and remove the accident victim’s organs—killing him so the other five can live. Let’s add the puzzle of what each person’s contribution to society is—similar to the one mentioned in the example above.

Isn’t it challenging to know if your actions will generate the greatest good?

A utilitarian would say the action which brings the most people happiness is the right one. The responses to these scenarios vary depending on one’s stance on ethics. For a utilitarian, the answer might be to save the most people or save the person(s) who make the most significant contributions to society.

Utilitarianism is a moral doctrine that states we should act to produce the greatest possible balance of good over bad for everyone affected by our actions. Actions themselves are morally neutral. It depends on their consequences as to whether they’re good or bad. Apart from consideration of such implications, actions are neither blameworthy nor praiseworthy. In other words, utilitarian actions aren’t necessarily good or bad but are widely believed to have good or bad consequences.

Utilitarianism always leads to the arbitrary judgment of consequences, and therefore arbitrary ethics.

Utilitarianism can allow for any action to occur, as long as it generates the greatest good for the greatest number. Even the vilest evil acts can be acceptable if it causes the most good. If you were faced with a situation where the greatest good would come from lying, cheating, stealing, or killing, should you do those particular actions? Does that seem ethical?

Few people are entirely motivated by the collective good. Elected officials in government aren’t Utilitarians in practice—given that those who pursue political power do not always have the public’s best interests in mind.

We’ve asked citizens and business owners to suffer over the past year because it’s for the greater good. For whom? Are more people suffering because of the actions of governments across the world, or has there been a ‘greater good’ because of their actions?

What do you think?

Clayton Craddock is an independent thinker, father of two beautiful children in New York City. He is the drummer of the hit broadway musical Ain’t Too Proud. He earned a Bachelor of Business Administration from Howard University’s School of Business and is a 25 year veteran of the fast-paced New York City music scene. He has played drums in several hit broadway and off-broadway musicals, including “Tick, tick…BOOM!, Altar Boyz, Memphis The Musical, and Lady Day At Emerson’s Bar and Grill. Also, Clayton has worked on: Footloose, Motown, The Color Purple, Rent, Little Shop of Horrors, Evita, Cats, and Avenue Q.

You can also follow me on Instagram and Twitter.

This was originally posted in September in an expanded essay.