| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
   |
Posted - 2008.11.25 10:19:00 -
[31]
1) This is why I am in favor of everyone being a donor, as it helps a lot for the donor issue.
2) This is different than the first issue. If we assume that Bill is the person whom we have to shoot he is going to die either way (in the first issue he will only die if we decide so). If he is not the one we should shoot, then he falls into group of people needing an organ because he would only die if we decide not to kill.
3) In case three we face the same issue at number two, there is either kill one or kill five.
What makes two and three fundamentally different than one is that Bill in number one does not have to die to save 5 people, there are other options, such as take organs from already deceased people. Also you can live with one kidney, one lung ect. You do need a heart however, until the point where we can grow organs.
Diary of a pod pilot |
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 12:05:00 -
[32]
Bill is not involved in the situation?
This isn't philosophy, it's morals.
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Stitcher
Caldari
Duty.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 12:13:00 -
[33]
it's simple and primordial:
Scenarios 2 and 3 balance the lives of people who are equally healthy. Scenario 1 balances the life of a healthy person versus the lives of five unhealthy ones.
At this point, the primitive monkey part of the hindbrain cuts in and lets instinctive darwinism take the reins.
From an intellectual, emotionless point of view, the selfless sacrifice of Bill IS the preferable alternative. However, we are not intellectual, emotionless creatures, and thus the feeling emotional core of ourselves is horrified at the idea.
Besides, there's always the probability of an external organ donor coming in as a result of, say, a nearby motorbike crash.
-
Captain Verin "Stitcher" Tarn-Hakatain. |
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 12:35:00 -
[34]
Edited by: Nyphur on 25/11/2008 12:40:15
I'm sorry if this question is supposed to be about morality but I've always been a pragmatist and I can't ignore the fact that transplants are not guaranteed to work and do not save lives permanantly. A donated kidney only lasts about 10-15 years at best and I'm not sure about the others.
In the case where you're told to choose one person to kill and the rest will be set free, there are a number of practical factors to explore. Firstly, you need to verify the voracity of the attacker's resolve. Is he going to really set the other five free if one is killed? In a hostage situation, that act would make no sense. It's far more likely that the attacker is just power-tripping on his ability to get one hostage to kill another. There's also the factor of how you're going to kill this person. In this scenario, you've just been given a gun and you're being held hostage. Depending on the size of the hostage-taker's group, this presents the viable alternative of shooting your attacker instead. Personal risk of death is high but if in the example you're only being held by one person, that risk could be seen to outweigh the benefits of diffusing the hostage situation.
However, in some kind of bizarre scenario where you were completely assured that by killing one person the other five would suvive and there's no alternative possible choice, then it becomes a moral dilemma. The question you have to ask is who you have the right to kill, and when it comes down to it you really only have the right to kill yourself. In this scenario, you should kill yourself so that the other five people are let go. Again, though, practical factors chime in here. Survival instinct may be overpowering to the point where you force yourself to choose someone else to die. I think you also need to consider what type of personality you actually have - given the fact that you'd killed someone, would you then be able to live with yourself or would you have a high chance of suicide later? Given a high chance of that possibility occuring, the rational choice overwhelmingly becomes shooting yourself so the other five can go.
 Originally by: Myrhial Arkenath
1) This is why I am in favor of everyone being a donor, as it helps a lot for the donor issue.
Once during secondary school, someone from the UK organ donor registry was called in to give us a talk on the importance of donating organs. They explained that that strict guidelines are enforced to ensure donor organs are only taken from people who are physically healthy but in a coma or declared braindead. By the time all brainstem activity has completely stopped, it's actually too late to harvest most organs. They explained that having a donor card gives the hospital you're at permission to take your organs and shut off the life support machine while without it the decision falls to your family. They went on to say that their organisation was pushing for changes in law to make the requirement cardiac death, regardless of the health of the brain. This would increase the number of donors available by using people who are still alive but whose hearts have failed. Suffice it to say, immediately after the talk most of the people present who already had organ donor cards cancelled their registration.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 13:07:00 -
[35]
Edited by: Sokratesz on 25/11/2008 13:07:15
Originally by: Nyphur
Suffice it to say, immediately after the talk most of the people present who already had organ donor cards cancelled their registration.
Wait, wait?
Here in the Netherlands a number of organisations are pushing hard for a system where everyone is donor unless specifically requested otherwise..too bad that conservative dimwits in the govt are doing everything they can to prevent it.
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 13:24:00 -
[36]
Edited by: P''uck on 25/11/2008 13:27:01
I'm not sure, but if we look at the original questions there is a main difference:
In one example five people might die because of reasons beyond us.
In the other example five people might die because some ******* has them at gunpoint.
The outcome may be the same, but that kidnapper somehow introduces a whole new set of variables into the equation. (also, as somebody stated, the smart thing probably would be to use the gun to shoot the kidnapper  )
Also, in the first example there is one person, you "only" have to decide wether to kill him or not. In the second example, even if it's not really mentioned in the text, subconsciously you realize you have to make a decision which of the five to kill.
So, to sum it up, I think it's not really valid to compare both situations in such a manner. At least I have to say, the reason for the different emotions/thoughts coming up for the two situations is... those are two completely different situations.
Also, there is this cheap trick of giving the victim a name in the first example and no name (yet) in the second one.
This isn't really a base for a "philosophical discussion", it's more like something which is referred to with the technical term "horse manure".
|
TimMc
Gallente
Brutal Deliverance
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 13:50:00 -
[37]
1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?
I don't think I could bring myself to shoot the hostage, let alone harvest someone for organs. Its their life to do with as they please, and I would rather offer myself than shoot someone who wasn't trying to kill me.
2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
If my brain was swapped with Bush's, true I would have the same memories, but I believe the differences in body chemistry would likely cause me to act significantly differently.
3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
Reality is impossible to comprehend with out small minds and limited senses, so the world likely doesn't look anything to an alien as it does to us. However this doesn't really matter until we do meet them. It would probably be trying to explain 3D to a 2D stick figure. How would you? (or, explain colour to a completely blind person. I know a deaf woman who hears sounds.)
4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
I came to this question a few years ago when thinking about a singular deity like the God of Judaism. Its fascinating, but if the big bang was started by someone who had knowledge of the future, they must have know the results of every atoms movement on our lives. To be honestly the Big bang being random sounds just as preposterous as a deity/ deities doing it.
|
Nyphur
Pillowsoft
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 14:56:00 -
[38]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Originally by: Nyphur
Suffice it to say, immediately after the talk most of the people present who already had organ donor cards cancelled their registration.
Wait, wait?
The person giving the talk essentially told everyone that carrying a donor card gives the doctors rights above your family to make the call on whether to take you off a life support machine and harvest your organs. They described organs being taken from people in states that people have in the past recovered from (deep comatose state or complete heart failure). The concensus from people afterward is that they would want their family to have the right to make that call and not the doctor.
|
Sokratesz
Rionnag Alba
Triumvirate.
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:10:00 -
[39]
Originally by: Nyphur
The person giving the talk essentially told everyone that carrying a donor card gives the doctors rights above your family to make the call on whether to take you off a life support machine and harvest your organs. They described organs being taken from people in states that people have in the past recovered from (deep comatose state or complete heart failure). The concensus from people afterward is that they would want their family to have the right to make that call and not the doctor.
Oh ok. That's different than what we have here. Call to end life = family's, yes/no to donor is by the owner, and if he hasn't made a decision the family can make it (which in practice appear to say no almost everytime, IDIOTS)
Wyvern & Chimera fitting flowchart |
Epegi Givo
Amarr
Ministry of War
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:34:00 -
[40]
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?
it is only O.K. if he is willing to kill himself. Otherwise don't do it
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.)
Kill one, because wither one person dies or 5. its not that hard to find out which is better
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.
Agreed
But then why not kill Bill?"
(I will answer this as if I said no to killing bill)
Because in the bill case there is always someone else to donate organs, but in the other two cases it is always 1 person or 5, no matter what.
-------------------------------------
Originally by: Karrade Krise
Originally by: Epegi Givo
This is my sig, or is it?
Now the only thing I can think of are Yard Gnome Ninjas...
|
Eda Barden
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:42:00 -
[41]
1 & 2 are different in that in 1 if no action is taken then no harm comes to Bill but in 2 if no action is taken then harm does come to the kidnap victims. Although in 2 probably the best thing to do is say "sure I'll shoot a hostage hand me your gun" then shoot the kidnapper.
|
Myrhial Arkenath
Ghost Festival
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 15:46:00 -
[42]
Originally by: Sokratesz
Edited by: Sokratesz on 25/11/2008 13:07:15
Originally by: Nyphur
Suffice it to say, immediately after the talk most of the people present who already had organ donor cards cancelled their registration.
Wait, wait?
Here in the Netherlands a number of organisations are pushing hard for a system where everyone is donor unless specifically requested otherwise..too bad that conservative dimwits in the govt are doing everything they can to prevent it.
Yep, heard it on the news today, I really hope it gets through. I come from Belgium where laws are already like that. I've yet to register as donor here so it would actually save me the trouble.
Diary of a pod pilot |
Sergeant Spot
Black Eclipse Corp
Band of Brothers
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 21:58:00 -
[43]
Real and honest life or death "need" for something is NOT the same as a "right" to something.
Its that simple.
Play nice while you butcher each other.
|
ouroboros trading
Gallente
Medics On Fire
|
Posted - 2008.11.25 22:08:00 -
[44]
considering how little care people take of their bodies i can't imagine there's much worth donating in a lot of people :/
945536? That's Numberwang! |
Kasmir
Labatt Industries
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 00:44:00 -
[45]
five people need organs? why not take the organs from one of them. this way you save 4 people who were dieing and 1 person who was healthy, as opposed to killing 1 healthy person to save 5 unhealthy.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ |
nahtoh
Caldari
StrikerCorp
Dark Trinity Alliance
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 00:49:00 -
[46]
Originally by: Reven Cordelle
Originally by: Micheal Dietrich
If he's healthy he needs to get the **** out of that demented hospital asap 
I think it poses that they knock on your door and say;
"You've been shortlisted for the 'give us your organs to save 5 people you don't know' program, you have no choice in the matter"
Bill should answer the door armed and take as many down as he could...
=========
"I am not saying there should be capital punishment for stupidity, but why can`t we just take the safety labels off everything and let the problem fix its self |
P'uck
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 13:12:00 -
[47]
I'd really like to link the "live organ donor" clip from Monty Python's "Meaning of Life"... problem is, it's probably neither work nor forumsafe 
|
YouGotRipped
Ewigkeit
|
Posted - 2008.11.27 13:39:00 -
[48]
Edited by: YouGotRipped on 27/11/2008 13:41:06
Originally by: Akita T
"1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?"
Hell yeah. As long nobody cares for that particular person enough to make a fuss, I say send in the harvest team. Heck, we should probably start human cloning as soon as possible to create such people nobody actually gives a damn about in the first place. But don't forget to lobotomize the suckers so they don't get away like in that stupid "The Island" movie.
As long as the survival of the entire species would depend on that, yes, otherwise we all die so who cares if it's sooner of later.
Originally by: Akita T
"2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?"
I am merely the sum of my memories, experiences and choices (assumed to be quantum-effect-like instead of deterministic).
I am never exactly the same person from split second to split second, yet I am sufficiently different from anybody else to distinguish myself from them... and that's me.
The actual form my body has is largely irrelevant, so I would still consider myself me if I would be transported in an entirely artificial form, as long as my capacities would be in the same order of magnitude as before. Any improvement would actually be great, thanks for asking.
I have not read anything in my entire life.
Originally by: Akita T
"3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?"
What computer screen ? 
Originally by: Akita T
"4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?"
See issue of "choice" under answer to section two.
Many-worlds interpretation or observer collapsing quantum effects, doesn't really matter, it's basically the same in the end : there's no such thing as "pre-determination". There's either "everything that could have happened happened to some version of me" or "you never know what's going to happen until after you observed it happen".
No, I chose to to reply however.
Black Sun Empire |
| |
|
| Pages: 1 [2] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |