Morality poll

[CallMeIshmael]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I value 4 lives more than 1.

[/ QUOTE ]
Which, I assume, means that if it was you who was going to be sacrificed for strangers, you would allow it, correct?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because you wouldnt like it, if someone committed an act, doesnt, by itself, make the act immoral.

Of course I would fight it, but I wouldnt call the act immoral.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So do I, but that doesnt make it immoral

[/ QUOTE ]
Murder can have mitigating circumstances, but it is never moral.

[/ QUOTE ]

You cant say things like this about morality. Its a highly subjective area, and you really need to look at things on a case by case basis instead of catch-all rules.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No that's very easy to understand. However I don't understand why you think that its relevent to the moral question here or why its means we should ignore these significantly different moral scenarios.

[/ QUOTE ]
Ok, then. You're turn. How are they different?

[/ QUOTE ]
I am not turn

but two simple questions will I hope make the point.

1) do you want to live in a world where the pilot of a crashing plane wont divert its course from the heavily populated areas to an area where some people definitely exist.

2) do you want to live in a world where if you vist hospital you are available for harvesting if required to save more than one life? Would you work there?, would you live nearby? Would you let your wife/daughter give birth there?

chez

[Ben K]

Wow, I'm surprised at how some people think these are similar.

1. People(s) WILL die.

2. People(s) MIGHT die.

It's the difference between knowing and guessing at. The 5 in 2. will die if not helped but helping them via the 1 does not guarantee their survival or their ongoing usefullness to society. On the other hand, by killing the 1, you have definately destroyed a useful individual.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I'm surprised at how some people think these are similar.

1. People(s) WILL die.

2. People(s) MIGHT die.

It's the difference between knowing and guessing at. The 5 in 2. will die if not helped but helping them via the 1 does not guarantee their survival or their ongoing usefullness to society. On the other hand, by killing the 1, you have definately destroyed a useful individual.

[/ QUOTE ]
I share your suprise but I preferred that to the repulsive idea of deciding based on usefullness to society.

maybe that's just me, but what is the purpose of this society against which you're judging usefullness?

chez

[Ben K]

Minor sideline, I'm not judging based on that at all. That was just padding. The point was the uncertainty.

[TimWillTell]

[ QUOTE ]
Question #1.

A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to a track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Do you flip the switch and kill one to save the five?


Question #2.

A nurse comes up to a doctor and says "Doctor we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital. We can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?"

[/ QUOTE ]

So the first I thought, well lets pull the switch, save the five and kill the one.
The second, I thought, no cannot take the organs.

But the way my logic reasoning works, it says that if you pull the switch, then you should also take the organs.

Nice dilemma!

[nepenthe]

[ QUOTE ]
Question #1.

A trolley is coming down a track, and it's going to run over and kill five people if it continues. A person standing next to a track can flip a switch and turn the trolley onto a side track where it will kill one but save the five. Do you flip the switch and kill one to save the five?


Question #2.

A nurse comes up to a doctor and says "Doctor we've got five patients in critical care; each one needs an organ to survive. We do not have time to send out for organs, but a healthy person just walked into the hospital. We can take his organs and save the five. Is that OK?"

[/ QUOTE ]

Problems like these are laced with multiple levels of cost-benefit analysis even if not immediately apparent. The similarities are clear enough: at the basest level, it's a 1-for-5 exchange, assuming we are dealing with innocent strangers throughout. In both cases, we are presented with a situation whereby the death of the 5 is imminent and near-certain if we choose not to act.

The crucial difference between the two problems lies in the extent and gravity of the action - given the scenario - required to save the greater number of people, and whether said extent and gravity are warranted in light of individual and societal implications. Once you understand this simple distinction, you should also understand why people who would choose to flip the switch in problem #1, but also choose not to harvest the innocent for organs in problem #2, are not necessarily contradicting themselves.

That said, I don't flip the switch.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not turn

[/ QUOTE ]
Nice catch, thank you.

[ QUOTE ]
1) do you want to live in a world where the pilot of a crashing plane wont divert its course from the heavily populated areas to an area where some people definitely exist.

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but that's not really a comparable scenerio. In the plane scenerio, there is a greater chance the pilot can crash without killing anyone by diverting to a less populated area. This is common sense. The goal of the pilot is to kill no one, not kill less. In the trolley scenerio, someone will die.

[ QUOTE ]
2) do you want to live in a world where if you vist hospital you are available for harvesting if required to save more than one life? Would you work there?, would you live nearby? Would you let your wife/daughter give birth there?

[/ QUOTE ]
No.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
Wow, I'm surprised at how some people think these are similar.

1. People(s) WILL die.

2. People(s) MIGHT die.

[/ QUOTE ]
Please re-read the scenerios. It is quite clear that the five hospital patients will die.

[RoundGuy]

[ QUOTE ]
But the way my logic reasoning works, it says that if you pull the switch, then you should also take the organs.

[/ QUOTE ]
Your logic and reasoning are impeccable. That is why you shouldn't throw the switch, just like you shouldn't take the organs.