This is a textbook thought experiment in utilitarianism, carried to its logical conclusion. Kill one person, save eight. We might not like it, we might consider it abhorrent, it might contravene international human rights law, but we can't argue that it's senseless.
It's not really utilitarianism at all. There is nothing in utilitarianism that says round up some undesirable group and kill them so a few wealthy people might get organs so they can live. The greatest good for the greatest number of people. What is the consequence of these actions, well first murder. That leads to no happiness for the murdered, their families and loved ones. The people receiving the results of that murder, when aware that they are culpable in murder and should probably be imprisoned for it, would not be very happy with the consequences. So no this is not utilitarianism. It's completely immoral and shows the sort of moral turpitude of that situation.
But the assumption you're making is that they're being killed in order to be harvested. While this is certainly a perverse incentive that such a collection system is creating, I don't find where the article mentions that organ harvesting is the reason for their collection, but mention their execution for dissidence and ethnicity.
If those victims were to die anyway, it does become somewhat of an utilitarian problem.
And if it is, the gaming issue that would bias decisions towards executing the prisoners instead of "lighter" sentences due to the "gains", which creates a vicious feedback loop ; and the fact that overall the gains in that system are not just people surviving, but also captors getting rich ; should point clearly to the vice and undefiable corruption that make it undeniably unethical.
That and the fact that a regular human with any ounce of love or humanity in its blood should feel how wrong and disgusting this all is
What you're leaving out is that the one person being killed is not picked randomly from the citizen pool, they are all persecuted minorities. So, a more accurate statement would be that China is murdering one person from a group the communist party doesn't like to save eight from the ethnic group that constitutes the overwhelming majority of the ruling class.
That is not utilitarianism, it's just tribalism and xenophobia.
Falun Gong are primarily the same ethnic group as majority: han. They are oppressed because the Communist Party cannot accept any rival ideology, even if it's a non-violent, peaceful spiritual ideology, because that might loosen their grip on the population.
I'm sure there are utilitarian communists out there who would argue that, yes, terrible, terrible, but necessary for the greater good.
Is it completely implausible to believe that people from "a group the communist party doesn't like" are simply less useful to Chinese society than a randomly selected citizen?
I'm not trying to defend China here, but it's futile to condemn an action if you have not made a good-faith effort to understand the rationale. China is a collectivist society - the rights of the individual are always secondary to the rights of the whole. We believe that people have a fundamental right to cause trouble, even if that's detrimental to social order; the Chinese Communist Party don't and a substantial proportion of their population agree wholeheartedly.
Saying "the Chinese shouldn't do this because it contravenes human rights" is like them saying "the First Amendment is terrible because it undermines social cohesion". It's an argument that seems nonsensical or in bad faith, because it's grounded in a completely alien conceptualisation of the role of the state and the rights of the individual.
If you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to address that core ideological difference. Why is your right to freedom of religion more valuable than our collective right to freedom from religious conflict? Why is your right to free speech more valuable than our collective right to social cohesion and stable governance? Why is your right to life more valuable than the right to life of the eight people who your organs could save?
Answering those questions is difficult and uncomfortable, but it's fundamentally necessary if you actually want to promote the values of liberal democracy rather than ineffectually condemning a different political culture.
> but it's futile to condemn an action if you have not made a good-faith effort to understand the rationale. China is a collectivist society - the rights of the individual are always secondary to the rights of the whole.
While your argument is presented within a logical/philosophical framework, it can only be made in a hypothesized world. The fallacy is that the "whole" is hardly ever considered. Within Communist system's, the "greater good" is sold as a cake: appealing but no substance.
I would bet that the organs are going to the top 1% of the rich, wealthy, and influential Chinese. I have no proof of this but being born in former USSR and still having connection to that part of the world, I can attest that majority almost never benefit.
> If you want to make a persuasive argument, you need to address that core ideological difference. Why is your right to freedom of religion more valuable than our collective right to freedom from religious conflict? Why is your right to free speech more valuable than our collective right to social cohesion and stable governance? Why is your right to life more valuable than the right to life of the eight people who your organs could save?
This is really tricky statement to make because on the philosophical stage, you are right. You have valid points and in theory, utilitarianism is more good than bad. However, in reality, its very difficult to discount human nature. It's simply too easy to become corrupt. In my opinion, such philosophical arguments are the road to hell, paved with good intention.
On the other hand, if we could build a perfect world, where everyone was altruistic, it would be best. Reconciling such a world with known human traits and action is a different beast all together.
