SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
  1. #1

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186

    SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

    Nothing to do with Hong Kong, but:

    SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

    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?


  2. #2

    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    11,884

    Pinko, pinko, pinko, your trolling is becoming a little to blatant


  3. #3

    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Southside
    Posts
    656

    Somebody needs to get a job. Or a job that requires them to do some actual work...


  4. #4

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Lair of the Village Idiot's Apprenctice
    Posts
    3,385
    Quote Originally Posted by pinko:
    But then why not kill Bill?
    Gratuitious QT reference
    deserves this

  5. #5

    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Park Island
    Posts
    807

    in defence of Pinko, this is from an article on the bbc website today, so he hasn't sat and thought it up himself...


  6. #6

    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    186
    Quote Originally Posted by DanielandHayley:
    in defence of Pinko, this is from an article on the bbc website today, so he hasn't sat and thought it up himself...
    Exactly. I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.

  7. #7

    Join Date
    Jan 2008
    Location
    Kowloon HK
    Posts
    1,226
    Quote Originally Posted by pinko:
    Exactly. I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.
    You get points for attempting...

    ...

    Actually, this article brings to mind "Philosophy-Ethics" at uni... where "utilitarianism", with the ol' refrain: "the greatest good for the greatest number" was "discussed"...

    Cloudy, messy... when other ideologies get tossed in

    [Added: In real- life, societies, dealing with individual human beings, things get A LOT messier, emotional, mean, politically-calculated, etc. Flawed and just DUMB, we are.]
    Last edited by emmie; 21-11-2008 at 01:52 PM. Reason: ;-)

  8. #8

    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    In a little burrow
    Posts
    943

    The difference in Bill's case is that Bill does not need to die. In the other cases, someone will die whichever option is chosen. If the 5 transplant patients don't get their organs and die, Bill will live.

    Besides, it's coldly planned murder by the person making the decision (the reader - you, me). In the other cases, we're not deciding to murder someone - we're making the best of a bad situation after a death is inevitable.

    To be honest, I thought all four "philosophical" questions were flawed or just shallow.

    Last edited by Sigga; 21-11-2008 at 01:55 PM.

  9. #9

    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    1,886
    Quote Originally Posted by pinko:
    Exactly. I thought it would be an interesting topic for discussion.
    great effort in quoting the original source. If your kidneys are ok, just go ahead and volunteer....

  10. #10

    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    In the Lair of the Village Idiot's Apprenctice
    Posts
    3,385

Closed Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast