The Utilitarian Approach

If sacrificing one person would save humanity, would you do it?

This week on Dystopedia, we’re exploring the moral grey zones of dystopian worlds, where survival often comes at an impossible cost. In my own work, the societies I create are shaped by control, punishment, and extreme ethical dilemmas, where characters are forced to navigate questions of right and wrong, and every choice carries consequences.

These worlds challenge us to ask: what would we do when the system demands we choose between our own safety and the greater good? When power is wielded without conscience and punishment becomes spectacle, how far could we go,  and what would we lose along the way?

Dystopian fiction doesn’t just entertain; it pushes us to reflect on our own ethics, the value of life, and the consequences of our decisions. There are no easy answers, but that’s what makes exploring these worlds so compelling.

So let’s unpack this one step at a time and look at the here and now. As a human race, we are polluting the planet and draining its resources at an unsustainable rate. The big question is: what are we doing about it? Are we pausing our habits, accepting temporary discomfort while we search for eco-conscious solutions? For some, yes, but for many, not enough has changed, or change only happens when it’s convenient. And for the rest, efforts are small and incremental.

Now let’s consider moments when survival was at stake. Take the Covid-19 pandemic, for example. Different countries took vastly different approaches. In China, strict lockdowns in some cities left people isolated and struggling to access food or support. In the UK, citizens were legally required to social distance and isolate, with rules enforced for the collective good. North Korea remains largely opaque, so we can’t fully verify their measures.

These situations forced societies to weigh individual freedom against collective safety. Governments made decisions on behalf of citizens, sometimes at great cost, because the greater good depended on coordinated action. Whether you agree with those choices or not, it highlights a recurring question in dystopian ethics: when survival is on the line, how far should rules and enforcement go, and how much trust should be placed in individual choice?

So the question remains: if sacrificing one person could save humanity, would you do it?

The truth is, the answer would be different for everyone. There are too many variables to consider,  who is this person? What does the sacrifice entail? And how would it truly impact humanity afterward? And the question with the biggest impact: would I be detached from it? 

But that’s exactly what makes dystopian fiction so compelling. It explores these dilemmas, showing what might need to give and how far our familiar morals can be pushed. Often, the change is smaller than we expect, but it’s enough to make us question what we would do in their shoes.