Utilitarianism and Moral Rights in "The Cold Equations"
This essay examines utilitarian ethics as applied to the moral dilemma presented in "The Cold Equations," in which a stowaway named Marilyn must be sacrificed so that seven ill men may receive life-saving medication. Drawing on Rosenstand's treatment of Jeremy Bentham's utilitarianism, the paper analyzes whether Barton's decision is ethically justified, explores the distinction between negative and positive rights, and considers how Marxist and fundamentalist perspectives complicate a purely utilitarian calculation. The essay also addresses the broader weaknesses of utilitarianism — its context-dependence, its separation of emotion from decision-making, and its historically arbitrary definition of who counts as a rights-bearing person — before concluding that emotional human nature persistently challenges purely utilitarian reasoning.
- Introduction to Utilitarian Ethics: Defines utilitarianism and its founding principles
- Barton's Decision and the Greatest Good: Evaluates Barton's choice to sacrifice Marilyn
- Moral and Fundamental Rights in Conflict: Analyzes whose rights are violated and why
- Negative and Positive Rights: Distinguishes noninterference from entitlement rights
- Weaknesses of Utilitarian Ethics: Critiques context-dependence and historical arbitrariness
- Emotion, Humanity, and the Limits of Utilitarianism: Explores how emotion challenges utilitarian reasoning
✍️ How to write this paper — guide, tools & examples ▾
What makes this paper effective
- Grounds abstract ethical theory in a concrete narrative scenario, making philosophical concepts accessible and testable against real stakes.
- Moves systematically from utilitarian justification to rights theory (negative/positive) to broader social critique, building a layered argument rather than a flat summary.
- Acknowledges counterarguments — alternative solutions, Marilyn's protest, the emotional dimension — and integrates them rather than dismissing them, which strengthens analytical credibility.
Key academic technique demonstrated
The paper uses a literary case study as a philosophical thought experiment, applying multiple ethical frameworks (utilitarian calculus, rights theory, Marxism) to a single scenario. This technique — testing a theory against a narrative — allows the writer to reveal the internal tensions within utilitarianism without needing to construct a hypothetical from scratch.
Structure breakdown
The essay opens by defining utilitarianism and situating it in the story, then evaluates Barton's decision from both inside and outside the utilitarian framework. It transitions into rights theory, distinguishing moral from fundamental rights and then negative from positive rights. The final sections zoom out to critique utilitarianism's historical arbitrariness and its conflict with human emotion, ending with an observation about how readers respond differently to characterized versus uncharacterized victims.
Introduction to Utilitarian Ethics
Utilitarian ethics was first developed by David Hume and later expanded by Jeremy Bentham (Rosenstand, p. 230). The core principle holds that, when evaluated, the consequences of a given action must produce the greatest possible good for all involved. When every available choice carries undesirable consequences, the principle dictates that the smaller sacrifice should be made. This is precisely the dilemma at the heart of the story of Marilyn and Barton.
Barton's Decision and the Greatest Good
Barton appears to be operating under a utilitarian ethical position. On the surface, this does seem to be the best course of action, since Marilyn will die regardless of whether she is sacrificed or not. If she is sacrificed, seven people live. If she is not, she and the seven others all die. The greatest good for the greatest number of people is therefore achieved by hastening Marilyn's death for the benefit of the seven.
Under the circumstances, the decision made by Barton and his commander is defensible. It is simply a matter of reality that the ship could not spare fuel for an extra passenger. The best course of action was to avoid the death of more than one innocent person by sacrificing only one, regardless of that person's character or ignorance of the law and its consequences. Consequences do not change according to a person's knowledge of them. This is evident in the way Marilyn ultimately accepts her fate.
If placed in Marilyn's position, one might have been more determined to find an alternative to one's own death — less willing to walk calmly to the cell that would serve as a final barrier against the void. Yet if truly convinced that no other solution existed, acceptance would eventually follow, even if under greater protest than Marilyn herself displayed.
The sympathetic natures of both Barton and his commander reinforce the impression that no other solution was available. However, applying imagination to the situation does open certain possibilities the narrative does not explicitly foreclose. The ship might, for example, have turned back to refuel, or left Marilyn at her original station. This would depend on how much time the ill men had to survive — information the story does not provide. According to the narrative, Marilyn's presence had not yet fatally compromised the fuel supply, which suggests the ship might have been able to return to its point of departure. The primary barrier to this alternative would have been the very rules and regulations that mandated her death in the first place. It remains possible, therefore, that an alternative solution could have been found — one that preserved not only Marilyn's innocent life, but also the seven lives at stake.
Moral and Fundamental Rights in Conflict
In this light, Marilyn's moral rights may be said to have been violated, since it is morally wrong to kill an innocent person. At the same time, one must ask whether the moral rights of the other seven persons are not also being violated. If Marilyn does not die, they will die. Even in dying alongside them, Marilyn would in some sense be complicit in violating their moral rights. From her own personal moral standpoint, therefore, the only moral choice available to her was to refrain from causing the men's deaths by accepting her own — even though she had done nothing to warrant being killed. From the viewpoint of utility, Marilyn's moral rights cannot be said to be worth more or less than the rights of those who would have died had she lived only a short time longer. Morally, it is therefore also preferable for her to die than to live.
Marilyn's fundamental rights have indeed been violated, since these rights hold that every person has the right to life and therefore the right not to be killed without just cause. Marilyn did nothing beyond wanting to see her brother, yet she faced the death penalty. The difference between her moral rights and her fundamental rights is that the latter govern one's existence as a person, while the former also govern one's conduct in relation to other human beings. One possesses moral rights, but those rights should not override the moral or fundamental rights of others. Because Marilyn's moral and fundamental rights were in direct conflict with those of the seven men, she ultimately chose, on a moral basis, to sacrifice herself so that others might live.
Narveson's central concern is therefore that the utilitarian view does not necessarily exclude a concern for moral or fundamental rights. This story demonstrates that morality is at the foundation of the utilitarian decision to sacrifice one innocent person so that seven innocent persons may live.
Create your account
Always verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.