Philosophical Question - Kill 1 to Save 5?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Ok, related question:

You're on a ship that is going down. There aren't enough life-boats.

Do you go down with the ship, or do you take one of the boats?

Well I guess that depends on circumstance...

If all the people are adults, then yes, self preservation wins...

If there are children on board, namely my children, without a second thought they get my seat on the lifeboat...

If there are children that aren't mine, then, I really can't say with 100% certainty what I'd do, but I'm 99% sure my seat would go to them...

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Ok, related question:

You're on a ship that is going down. There aren't enough life-boats.

Do you go down with the ship, or do you take one of the boats?

All things being equal, survival of the fittest rules. Having said that, if I saw someone pushing a child aside to save themself, I'd probably make a pretty determined effort to see that the child ended up in a boat, and the other person did not.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

...

All things being equal, survival of the fittest rules.

But in making that choice, you're essentially killing others for your own life. So it's ok to kill people passively to save 1 life, but it's not ok to kill people actively to save 5?

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Having said that, if I saw someone pushing a child aside to save themself, I'd probably make a pretty determined effort to see that the child ended up in a boat, and the other person did not.

BTW, attitudes like yours would probably end up killing MORE people, because they would force every middle-aged male to push off as soon as possible for fear of your vigilantism, thereby leaving more innocents on the boat while a bunch of half-filled lifeboats float around the ocean.

And why do you care about some random brats?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Ok, related question:

You're on a ship that is going down. There aren't enough life-boats.

Do you go down with the ship, or do you take one of the boats?


Personally, I take the boat, even though I know that in doing so I'm killing someone else, and I'm fine with that decision. The desire for self-preservation is incredibly strong, and rightly so.

So, likewise, if my choice is between my life and the life of someone I don't know who means nothing to me, I choose me pretty much every time, and I don't really feel bad doing it.

This is different than your original question though. In the original question, whether the 5 patients die or the 1 healthy guy dies, it really doesn't have any effect on you. You still live regardless.

In the lifeboat question your life is being directly effected. Self preservation trumps doing the right thing almost every time....Unless you're Bruce Willis and a giant astroid is heading towards earth.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...

This is different than your original question though. In the original question, whether the 5 patients die or the 1 healthy guy guys, it really doesn't have any effect on you. You still live regardless.

In the lifeboat question your life is being directly effect. Self preservation trumps doing the right thing almost every time....Unless you're Bruce Willis and a giant astroid is heading towards earth.

I know it's different, but it was in response to someone saying, "How could you live with yourself for taking an organ that came from a guy who was killed?!"

The point there was why does it matter how the guy you got the organ from died? Is it any better if he was killed by a serial killer, was hit by a bolt of lightning, suffered a massive stroke or was killed by a doctor?


But if you want to differentiate between you being the doctor and actually having to kill the guy, try this: Could you, as the doctor go into the next room, where the other 5 patients are waiting and say, "There is a guy in the next room who is a perfect match for all your organs, but he doesn't want to donate them. If he dies today, I can save all of your lives - but if he lives, you'll all die."

Or is that wrong?




My point in all of this is to show that it's not quite the cut-and-dry question that some of you think it is, and that there are circumstances in which the core guiding principle that most seem to abide by here (ie. Thou shall not kill) is actually pretty flexible.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

My point in all of this is to show that it's not quite the cut-and-dry question that some of you think it is

To me, it is a very cut-and-dry question, and someone who thinks that they should murder the dude (based on the situation you presented), should check themselves into a mental hospital.

Also, I wouldn't say that the possible donor guy is being selfish for wanting to keep his heart and lungs ... but, call me crazy . (I'm not saying anyone called him selfish ... but that's a lot to ask of a guy coming in for a yearly check-up)

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

But in making that choice, you're essentially killing others for your own life. So it's ok to kill people passively to save 1 life, but it's not ok to kill people actively to save 5?

...

You're missing the whole survival of the fittest thing. In a battle for survival, the participants decide the outcome. Sometimes that involves a battle, but in some instances one side may voluntarily concede. That's a lot different than your surgeon who has no skin in the game deciding who lives and who dies. If the surgeon is that noble, he should kill himself and donate his own organs.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

BTW, attitudes like yours would probably end up killing MORE people, because they would force every middle-aged male to push off as soon as possible for fear of your vigilantism, thereby leaving more innocents on the boat while a bunch of half-filled lifeboats float around the ocean.

Yeah, I don't think so. I believe that good people tend to do the right thing in life threatening situations.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

The point there was why does it matter how the guy you got the organ from died? Is it any better if he was killed by a serial killer, was hit by a bolt of lightning, suffered a massive stroke or was killed by a doctor?

To me it does. I think there is a HUGE difference in receiving a kidney from someone who died in an accident, then someone who was brutally murdered because he refused to give his life for someone else.

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

But if you want to differentiate between you being the doctor and actually having to kill the guy, try this: Could you, as the doctor go into the next room, where the other 5 patients are waiting and say, "There is a guy in the next room who is a perfect match for all your organs, but he doesn't want to donate them. If he dies today, I can save all of your lives - but if he lives, you'll all die."

In essence the organ donor program does this every day. There are all kinds of organs that could be used in transplants that go unused every day. I get what you're saying though...you're wondering if I could plant the seed of murder in someone's head. Again, the answer is no, while he maybe wouldn't have died from my hands, it was actions that got him killed...to me...its almost the same thing.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

But if you want to differentiate between you being the doctor and actually having to kill the guy, try this: Could you, as the doctor go into the next room, where the other 5 patients are waiting and say, "There is a guy in the next room who is a perfect match for all your organs, but he doesn't want to donate them. If he dies today, I can save all of your lives - but if he lives, you'll all die."

Or is that wrong?

Sure, I could do that, would it be pleasant, of course not, it would be painfully awkward...

But, I also don't think any of the five would expect a perfectly healthy person to give up their life to save others, no matter how many he could save...

I know I wouldn't expect a total stranger to say ya, just off me and you can have my lungs...

Ditto what everyone one else has said.... it's totally twisted to even consider the original scenario could be justifiable. I certainly wouldn't want to be a patient of a doctor that would be conflicted with this issue.

No. (I could change with the right answers)

The five may get a great transplant. But why do they need it? How long will this extend their life?

With the boat situation you are now removing any question of morality, since you are talking self-preservation and not a moral stand. Self-preservation trumps morality.

I pose a slight variation to the original hypothetical and see if all the answers are the same.

If the five people you are saving are not complete strangers, but your loved ones. Would you kill the 1 person you do not know to save your loved ones or let your loved ones die?

See my questions right above your post.

@ Notech - for the sake of argument, assume that all 5 will have long lives if they receive a transplant. In other words, they're not old like you.

You're so sweet SP

(that's only 1 of 2 questions answered)

Fine...I'll answer the other question. They need it because they'll die without it. I thought it was obvious, but perhaps you couldn't read it...you know with your fading eyesight and all.

Ok, I see that my question wasn't worded the way I was thinking.

Why do they need it(is it from them smoking, drinking, over weight..or just weak genes)?

I see now.

Lets say they have genetic defects that caused their conditions.

Still no.
I can't think of any reasons. That is why I asked for good reasons.

Quote:

Originally posted by Notech

No. (I could change with the right answers)

The five may get a great transplant. But why do they need it? How long will this extend their life?

They need new organs because theirs were damaged by radiation, as they worked at a nuclear power plant that was failing and stayed to prevent a meltdown. Their organs were damaged, but other than that they're perfectly fine.

They will all live out the rest of their natural lives if they receive those organs.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

You're missing the whole survival of the fittest thing. In a battle for survival, the participants decide the outcome. Sometimes that involves a battle, but in some instances one side may voluntarily concede. That's a lot different than your surgeon who has no skin in the game deciding who lives and who dies. If the surgeon is that noble, he should kill himself and donate his own organs.

I never said anything about nobility.

The surgeon who thinks it's ok to kill the person to save 5 others isn't pretending to be a hero, he's just acting as a Consequentialist/Utilitarian - "The greatest good for the greatest number of people."

Further, the situation is predicated on him being the best surgeon ever, so that there is 100% certainty that all 5 of the potential recipients live, so killing himself would be counterproductive (and that's without taking into account all of the other people he may go on to save with his transplant skills)

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Yeah, I don't think so. I believe that good people tend to do the right thing in life threatening situations.

Two things:

1. The 'right thing' is totally subjective.

2. There's actual historical proof that your optimistic view of mankind is misplaced:



(Lifeboats with a capacity for 60 people left, in some cases, with at few as 12 passengers on board)



I'm also curious about your child-lifeboat answer. Why is the life of the child more important than the life of someone else?

In that statement you're making a value judgment about whose life is more important and acting to ensure that occurs...you're essentially making the choice that you DON'T want the doctor in the scenario to make.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I think there is a HUGE difference in receiving a kidney from someone who died in an accident, then someone who was brutally murdered because he refused to give his life for someone else.

You have a failing organ. You find out that one is available, but it came from a woman who was in the process of being killed by a serial killer...luckily, someone called 911 to report suspicious activity, and the police caught the guy in the act, but the woman couldn't be saved, and she was an organ donor.

Do you take her organ?

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I get what you're saying though...you're wondering if I could plant the seed of murder in someone's head. Again, the answer is no, while he maybe wouldn't have died from my hands, it was actions that got him killed...to me...its almost the same thing.

You pay taxes and you vote for your politicians. Canada participated in the War in Afghanistan which has killed about 20,000 people; 9,000 of which were civilians. You, therefore, are responsible for those deaths.

Also, I suppose you think the pastor who burned the Koran this past week is responsible for the deadly riots in Afghanistan??