Destination SkillQueue
Are We There Yet
   |
Posted - 2008.11.20 20:41:00 -
[1]
 Originally by: Reven Cordelle
BBC News had a little gem earlier with "Four philosophical questions to make your brain hurt"
I'll draw your attention to the first -
"Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.
But then why not kill Bill?"
Come one, Come all. Bring your logic and... DISCUSS.
Personally? I think this is a loaded question. It doesn't really factor in if Bill gives a flying **** about any of the people he's positioned to save. At the end of the day its his jurisdiction.
Alas the question asks us if WE, the collective, should kill Bill for his organs to save 5 more people.
It says Bill is healthy, but alone... But it doesn't really tell us if the 5 he would save are literally about to pop off anyway.
I personally say we don't kill Bill. Its his body... and the organ donation program exists for a reason.
What say you Chaps?
1. It would not be ok to kill Bill. Humans don't deserve to be treated just as a means to an end. If you start violating this rule, people getting harvested for organs will be the least of your worries.
2.I would not shoot in this case. There is no logical reason why shooting one would be necessary and you cannot trust the person giving you the choice. If the ****er giving you the choice wanted to kill or save everyone he could. He is a sick **** that is just testing you. Your choice is whether you become a murderer and part of his sick game or not.
3. I would propably just try to stop the train, but with enough time would likely try to direct the train so it will minimize any damage. This is totally different situation. I know how the train will act by physical necessity at that point. There is no way to avoid getting someone killed.
The situation are not comparable by any stretch of the imagination. Just think about the situations from the perspective of probable consequences.
1.case has some real ****ty, serious long term consequenses if this logic would actually be applied in society. If you accept the logic in this case, you are in a bad position to complain when the calculations put you or your loved ones in the meat grinder for the benefit of the greater good.
2.case. The consequenses you can predict are whether you kill the man or not. Everything else has no physical causal connection to your actions. The mother ****er might keep his word, might kill you and the hostages, might be giving you an empty gun, and so on and on... The choice is between certain death of a man by your hand or uncertainty about everything. The kidnapper is in control and he decides the outcome. He alone carriess the responsibility of any deaths, if you choose not to shoot anyone.
3.case. Isolated freak incident where the only realistic choice is between 5 or 1 deaths. The one that tied those guys to the track is the killer and carries the responsibility. Your hands are clean and the best you can do is minimize the amount of deaths.
Crappy philosophical puzzles as a whole. If you have a coherent moral philosophy you should see the solutions right away and also the differences between the examples. |