Philosophical Question - Kill 1 to Save 5?

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

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.

With the absolute guaranty that they will live a life with no other ill affects from that exposure?

Edit: I did think of that scenario

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

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."

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." a psychopath that thinks it's ok to murder someone to prevent the deaths of others and will be going to jail for a very long time where he will not be performing any lifesaving surgery anymore.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...



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?

Yes, because she wasn't killed against her will soley for the collection of her organs.
...

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

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.

Not really. What if I didn't vote for the party in power?

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

Also, I suppose you think the pastor who burned the Koran this past week is responsible for the [ Link ]?

I think this is a debate for another thread, but in a way yes, I think he will be responsible for the deaths of innocent people...both American and Afghani.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

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." a psychopath that thinks it's ok to murder someone to prevent the deaths of others and will be going to jail for a very long time where he will not be performing any lifesaving surgery anymore.

I applaud your consistent and well-thought out response to this ethical question.

Now, just a couple more:

Imagine someone breaks into your house, and has your entire family held up at gunpoint.

Your next door neighbor (for fun, let's assume he's a surgeon) storms into your house, and kills the intruder. Is he a psychopathic murderer who should go to jail for the rest of his life?




And just for fun, answer me this: is George W. Bush "a psychopath that thinks it's ok to murder someone (100,000+ someones, actually) to prevent the deaths of others and [should] be going to jail for a very long time?"

Quote:

Originally posted by Notech

...

With the absolute guaranty that they will live a life with no other ill affects from that exposure

Yes; that's why I said they have no other effects of the radiation...it was just specific to those organs that they now need replaced.

You know I've read through the first post at least a dozen times since yesterday and I normally comprehend very well what is being said.

This;
[reply=quote]You ask, but he(the potential donor) says, "Sorry. I deeply sympathize, but no." Would it be morally permissible for you to operate anyway?[/quote]

In this case I stay with a resounding NO.

I was thinking, I guess that is where I lost my way.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
Yes, because she wasn't killed against her will soley for the collection of her organs.
...

No, she was killed because some dude wanted to rape/stab/whatever her. And apparently that's better?

To summarize, you don't really care HOW the person was killed, you just care about WHO killed them?

And you think it's ok to take an organ from a person killed by a crazed serial killer who inflicted lots of pain on the victim during death, but you don't think it's ok to take an organ from a person killed by a doctor?

Seems an odd distinction, to me.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

Not really. What if I didn't vote for the party in power?

Your taxes pay for the bombs and the bullets. Murderer.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I think this is a debate for another thread, but in a way yes, I think he will be responsible for the deaths of innocent people...both American and Afghani.

You're right - it's not really appropriate for this thread, I was just pointing to a situation in which one person is being blamed for the actions of others. But, at least your consistent in your answers on this. (BTW, the Supreme Court of the US agrees with you on this, as they deem some speech "fighting words" which have a reasonable expectation of inciting violence, and are therefore not protected under the US's 1st amendment...so you have some good company.)

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

No, she was killed because some dude wanted to rape/stab/whatever her. And apparently that's better?

To summarize, you don't really care HOW the person was killed, you just care about WHO killed them?

And you think it's ok to take an organ from a person killed by a crazed serial killer who inflicted lots of pain on the victim during death, but you don't think it's ok to take an organ from a person killed by a doctor?

Seems an odd distinction, to me.

No, I don't care if it was a doctor or not who did the killing. I care about the circumstances sounding the situation. The woman in your example is going to die regardless...sick people do sick shit everyday. The original situation is different, the guy wasn't going to die until the doctor potentially put him in that situation.

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

Your taxes pay for the bombs and the bullets. Murderer.

I sleep ok. How do you sleep knowing that American forces have killed way more people?

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

You're right - it's not really appropriate for this thread, I was just pointing to a situation in which one person is being blamed for the actions of others. But, at least your consistent in your answers on this. (BTW, the Supreme Court of the US agrees with you on this, as they deem some speech "fighting words" which have a reasonable expectation of inciting violence, and are therefore not protected under the US's 1st amendment...so you have some good company.)

I do believe that in some cases evil people shouldn't be able to hid behind the protection of the 1st Amendment.

Quote:

Originally posted by Sugarpie

...
No, I don't care if it was a doctor or not who did the killing. I care about the circumstances sounding the situation. The woman in your example is going to die regardless...sick people do sick shit everyday. The original situation is different, the guy wasn't going to die until the doctor potentially put him in that situation.

Everyone's going to die. It's just a matter of timing.

But seriously it seems to me, and obviously I'm in the minority here, that the main distinction between the two circumstances is that in one case the person doing the killing is crazy, and in the other instance the person doing the killing is doing it to help others; yet you guys find the second situation worse.

Quote:

Originally posted by SP

I sleep ok. How do you sleep knowing that American forces have killed way more people?

I sleep pretty terribly...I thought you knew that. lol

Fun fact: Over the last 5 years I've been a net drain on the tax system of the US, so I'm doing my part in decreasing their ability to wage war.

Quote:

Originally posted by EL

Fun fact: Over the last 5 years I've been a net drain on the tax system of the US, so I'm doing my part in decreasing their ability to wage war.

The best laugh I've had all night, thanks.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Imagine someone breaks into your house, and has your entire family held up at gunpoint.

Your next door neighbor (for fun, let's assume he's a surgeon) storms into your house, and kills the intruder. Is he a psychopathic murderer who should go to jail for the rest of his life?

Dude, just admit that the original posted scenario is bunk. It's a no brainer. There is no way to justify the surgeon murdering the guy.

My neighbor would not be a psychopath (although it is hilarious to think of them as surgeons because one of them is a 400 pounder, and the other neighbor is like 4'10" who has a beer in his hand at all times during the day) in my eyes, but he might go to jail for the rest of his life. It would be up to a jury to decide if it was murder, and I don't think that would be what they come up with. I'm quite sure that in the original scenario, the jury would find the surgeon guilty of murder no ifs ands or buts.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

And just for fun, answer me this: is George W. Bush "a psychopath that thinks it's ok to murder someone (100,000+ someones, actually) to prevent the deaths of others and [should] be going to jail for a very long time?"

I don't know the man, I couldn't tell you if he thinks it's ok to murder people.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

...

Dude, just admit that the original posted scenario is bunk. It's a no brainer. There is no way to justify the surgeon murdering the guy.

My neighbor would not be a psychopath (although it is hilarious to think of them as surgeons because one of them is a 400 pounder, and the other neighbor is like 4'10" who has a beer in his hand at all times during the day) in my eyes, but he might go to jail for the rest of his life. It would be up to a jury to decide if it was murder, and I don't think that would be what they come up with. I'm quite sure that in the original scenario, the jury would find the surgeon guilty of murder no ifs ands or buts.

Apparently, in your world short people and fat people and people who drink beer can't be surgeons.

But anyway, nice dodge of the question. I didn't ask what a jury would do, I asked what you thought.

And judging from your answer, you seem to think that your neighbor killing one person to save the lives of your family is ok (shouldn't go to jail), but then you think the doctor killing one person to save 5 others is psychopathic (should go to jail).

What's the difference?

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

I don't know the man, I couldn't tell you if he thinks it's ok to murder people.

You don't need to know him. You can look at the history of the Iraq war. 100,000 people were killed, 60,000+ of whom were innocent civilians, because he wanted to make the world "safer." Again, HE ISSUED THE ORDERS THAT HAVE KILLED 100,000 PEOPLE. This is not in dispute. His reasons for doing so are also not in dispute - he asserted that he was making the world a safer place.

And this behavior, the killing of people to make others more safe, is the exact behavior that you claimed just a few posts ago is psychopathic.

In case you forgot, this is what you said, with two edits to change the principles in the situation:

Quote:

The surgeon PRESIDENT who thinks it's ok to kill the person LOTS OF PEOPLE to save 5 others isn't pretending to be a hero, he's just a psychopath that thinks it's ok to murder someone to prevent the deaths of others

So, if a person kills an innocent person to save the lives of 5 people, it's psychopathic.
If some other person kills 60,000 innocent people in an attempt to make his country safer, you can't pass judgment?

So, what's the magic line in terms of number of people killed that makes you ambivalent. Maybe the doctor didn't kill enough people to save enough other people?

That's only slightly related to Thompson's actual Trolly Problem.

In the "real" one, you're at the rail switchboard and notice a runaway trolly heading towards 5 railworkers working on one section of track, while one railworker is on the other section. Do you justify switching the connection, so the trolly kills the one as opposed to the five?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...


I never said anything about nobility.

Alright, then substitute the word noble for humanitarian, which is a derivative of a word you did use.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

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)

First of all, your scenario only accounts for the skills, accomplishments, and value of the surgeon without considering the skills, accomplishments, and value of either the donor, or the recipients, so the whole scenario isn't really about the welfare of the 6 involved, it's about the perceived self-importance of of the surgeon. ie God complex.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

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.

It's not about the value of the life of the child, it's about value of the life of the guy that decided to toss the child aside to save his own life. In your example the guy you want to sacrifice is not directly responsible for misfortune of the 5 terminally ill patients. The same applies to your hero-neighbor scenario where the neighbor is attempting to save the family from someone who's intent is to do them harm.

Quote:

Originally posted by Bangledesh

That's only slightly related to Thompson's actual Trolly Problem.

In the "real" one, you're at the rail switchboard and notice a runaway trolly heading towards 5 railworkers working on one section of track, while one railworker is on the other section. Do you justify switching the connection, so the trolly kills the one as opposed to the five?

Depends on if any of them owe me money or not

But seriously, in this scenario I would say yes, it is justifiable to kill one to save five...

it's an interesting debate and not one I have come across before to be honest. It reminds me of a movie I saw a while back that I can't remember the name. but from what I remember, a doctor was taking patients against their will and was either killing them or paralyzing them (accidentally) for stem cell research. what prompted this was someone he cared deeply for was paralyzed so he was going through great lengths to fix this.

Quote:

Originally posted by Demodad68

...

Depends on if any of them owe me money or not

But seriously, in this scenario I would say yes, it is justifiable to kill one to save five...

So you'd actively decide to kill that one guy as opposed to staying uninvolved and not getting any blood on your hands? Those 5 men were cosmically slated to die. For whatever reason- free choice, destiny, fate, divine plan, etc- they ended up on that section of track. Just as that one man was cosmically destined to live before you decided to intervene against him just because he has fewer friends at that moment.

Ok if we're gonna go that route, if the 5 were cosmically doomed, or suppose to die at that point in time, I wold not have had the option to change tracks. Or, if I try to change tracks there would be a malfunction that would prohibit the tracks from changing...

See, I believe when it's your time to die, it's your time to die, no matter who or what may try to save your life...

So that being said, I guess there must have been a reason that I might be able to save the five by changing tracks...

Yep, the Trolley scenario is just as clear-cut as the original question. You send the runaway trolley in the direction that causes the least damage. I'm surprised people struggle with these decisions.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

...

Apparently, in your world short people and fat people and people who drink beer can't be surgeons.

Yeah, well, guess you have to know my neighbors. Trying to have a little fun, like you suggested, didn't realize I was going to offend you.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

But anyway, nice dodge of the question. I didn't ask what a jury would do, I asked what you thought.

That's why I wrote ... "in my eyes, he is not a psychopath". That is what I think about it.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

And judging from your answer, you seem to think that your neighbor killing one person to save the lives of your family is ok (shouldn't go to jail), but then you think the doctor killing one person to save 5 others is psychopathic (should go to jail).

What's the difference?

Change your original scenario to ... "a guy comes in for a yearly check-up, his blood type is a perfect match for the organ transplants. The surgeon also sees indisputable evidence in the guy's wallet, that he is the guy who killed his nextdoor neighbors. Should the surgeon kill him to save the 5 people?"

Then there would be no difference.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

You don't need to know him. You can look at the history of the Iraq war. 100,000 people were killed, 60,000+ of whom were innocent civilians, because he wanted to make the world "safer." Again, HE ISSUED THE ORDERS THAT HAVE KILLED 100,000 PEOPLE. This is not in dispute. His reasons for doing so are also not in dispute - he asserted that he was making the world a safer place.

Him and congress issued the orders. There are dozens of Youtube videos I can pull up for you showing that (military force was necessary), if you have forgotten, like so many people have conveniently done. There was also a few other nations involved in the invasion, as well as a force of 70,000 Iraqi Kurdish troops fighting with us. This makes it different than your original scenario, because others came to the same conclusion as him before he committed.

Quote:

Originally posted by Eric Lindros

And this behavior, the killing of people to make others more safe, is the exact behavior that you claimed just a few posts ago is psychopathic.

Yes, I'd say the surgeon acting on his own to murder someone is psychopathic. A nation declaring war on Iraq is not psychopathic.

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

So, if a person kills an innocent person to save the lives of 5 people, it's psychopathic.
If some other person kills 60,000 innocent people in an attempt to make his country safer, you can't pass judgment?

See above reasons. One person didn't directly cause "60,000 innocent people" to die. By the way, are you sure the U.S. is responsible for all of those civilian casualties?

Quote:

Originally posted by EricLindros

So, what's the magic line in terms of number of people killed that makes you ambivalent. Maybe the doctor didn't kill enough people to save enough other people?

There is no magic number. It depends on who is being killed. An innocent guy in for a check up, and a guy trying to kill my family and I, are very different. If you can't see that I guess we'll never come to an agreement.

Sorry, it was late last night. I was not trying to dodge any questions. I am also not trying to belittle your thread. It makes for interesting conversation and I do like a good debate.

You keep changing the scenario to justify the surgeons actions. If you have to do that, you know it is wrong. Like you said earlier, you would never do it yourself, even though you voted yes.