The most ethical position is utilitarianism, up until the point where people who aren't weak or sick or poor or otherwise downtrodden have to sacrifice a single grain of rice, after which it's deontological ethics and how dare you infringe upon property rights. (And I'm not just criticising other people, here.)
It's a hard problem. We have different intuitions for large groups (do whatever saves the most people) and individual cases (how dare you even consider killing someone for spare parts!); and somehow, improving society somewhat – say, funnelling some of that yacht money towards lifesaving treatment – never factors in to these life or death decisions. So what can you do, with limited resources?
It's a hard problem. We have different intuitions for large groups (do whatever saves the most people) and individual cases (how dare you even consider killing someone for spare parts!); and somehow, improving society somewhat – say, funnelling some of that yacht money towards lifesaving treatment – never factors in to these life or death decisions. So what can you do, with limited resources?
It's a coordination problem, more than anything. https://www.principiadiscordia.com/book/45.php contains about as much actionable advice as this here complaint of mine.