Response from David Brink on February 23, 2006

We can take one of two different attitudes toward the sanctity of life. We could try to promote this value or we could honor it on each and every occasion. Promoting value reflects a consequentialist approach to morality, whereas honoring values treats them as side constraints on the pursuit of goals. Sometimes promoting and honoring values seem to provide different guidance. In the lifeboat case, promoting human life would seem to require sacrificing one to save several, whereas honoring human life would seem to require that no one be sacrificed against her will, even if this means that fewer lives would be saved or even no lives saved. Sacrifice to promote human life will be less objectionable if the determination of who is to be sacrificed is made in some fair (e.g. random) way. It may not be objectionable at all (it may not even violate side constraints) if someone consents to be sacrificed, and her consent is informed and uncoerced. It's often permissible to impose a burden on someone that would otherwise be impermissible if they consent to the burden. Rights can be waived. The question here is whether the right to life is alienable or not. It's hard to defend the side constraint approach that honors, rather than promotes, the value of life by appealing to the "significance" of the interest in life. For the lives of those that could be saved by sacrificing one are, by hypothetis, just as significant. One needs some other sort of rationale for side constraints.