The answer is based on the consideration of the principles of sacrifice, utilitarian calculation, and the prioritization of ethical values that determine whom to choose for rescue in situations of extreme necessity.

Balancing Sacrifice and Survival: Utilitarian Ethics in Life-and-Death

The answer is based on the consideration of the principles of sacrifice, utilitarian calculation, and the prioritization of ethical values that determine whom to choose for rescue in situations of extreme necessity. From the quote in file link txt it is evident that even in medical practice difficult decisions must be made, when “sometimes a doctor has to decide: to whom to transplant an organ and thus save that person.” Here, the moral dilemma lies in the fact that the choice is based not on personal sympathies but on an objective analysis of the chances of survival and the potential contribution of the saved person to the future: “Before you are several injured. You cannot save everyone.

Who will you pay more attention to?

.. You choose the one who might survive—and at his expense, someone will die.” This underscores the utilitarian approach, where saving one person may be justified if that person’s life is of critical importance to many others.

Another important aspect is the nature of moral qualities which, according to another quote, “are more defining for his essence than his intellect or his aesthetic taste” ( link txt). This emphasizes that morality and ethics have an imperative character and that when making a decision, one relies on deep ethical principles that essentially form the basis of his being. This means that the choice to save someone can be seen as an act of service to higher values, where personal sacrifice is justified in the service of the common good.

Thus, the moral and ethical aspects influencing such a choice include:
1. The readiness for personal sacrifice in the name of a greater good, as reflected in the description of a patient’s willingness to participate in risky experiments to save many ( link txt).
2. The utilitarian approach, where the decision is made in the context of the specific situation, based on the probability of survival and the potential contribution of the saved person ( link txt, as well as link txt).
3. The predominance of ethical values as determinants of a person’s essence, which forces one to choose not based on personal sympathies but on an objective assessment of the significance of life ( link txt).

These considerations help to understand that when choosing to save only one person, both morality and ethics require not just a rational evaluation of the specific situation but also a reliance on the profound values that shape one’s essence.

Supporting citation(s):
“The sacrificial approach can also be manifested on the part of the patient. For example, I think one can say to a person: ‘You have such-and-such disease. We currently have a method to treat it, which is untested and may be dangerous, may cause you suffering or even be lethal. Would you agree to use this treatment method—knowing that it could help us make a huge leap forward in healing other people—even if it causes you suffering, even if it kills you’…” (source: link txt)

“I think this is one of the most difficult issues in medical practice, not only in relation to organ transplants. It constantly arises, for example, during wartime. You are faced with several wounded individuals. You cannot save them all. Whom will you pay the most attention to?.. You choose the one who might survive—and at his expense, someone will die. You do not necessarily choose the person you would prefer to save; you decide the matter solely in the context of the given situation.” (source: link txt)

“Ethical values have an imperative character, and the very idea of service carries a religious-ethical nature... A person’s moral qualities are more defining of his essence than his intellect or his aesthetic taste.” (source: link txt)