Two More "Axiom" Questions - Page 4

Elandriel · #31 02-12-2007, 11:27 AM

1. Don't think so, if it's not that bad and only lasts one hour i don't care. (and taken that there is NO chance at all that irriversible damage is taken.)

2. Y

I would love to see DS's own answer and explanation.

Vex · #32 02-12-2007, 04:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]

1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

As somebody who does suffer migraines (but only rarely), I can say that the proposition would be sorely tempting. But I would have to say "no". The funny thing about most pain is that you never remember how bad it is, after it goes away.

Now, if we were talking about something more traumatic, like the kind of pain that actually damages someone psychologically (like third-degree burns), I think you should sacrifice as many puppies as it takes to end the pain early, for the sake of the victim's mind.

[ QUOTE ]

2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

[/ QUOTE ]

The one who is in more pain should get the medicine. Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution. Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.

LouisCyphre · #33 02-12-2007, 08:51 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

ratel · #34 02-12-2007, 10:56 PM

1. Yes. Why? I'm selfish, and random dogs die every day.

If you're a softhead, you could always rationalize the premature death of one dog as giving the others in the pool of potential adoptees a better shot at not getting killed. Or maybe "at least this dog didn't die in vain, as it had a 90% chance of doing without me." Or something.

2. Y. Actually, I'd be tempted to learn more about X and Y and "play God" based on additional merit-based criteria. If X were Mother Teresa and Y were Adolph Hitler... you catch my drift.

Peter McDermott · #35 02-13-2007, 12:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1. Yes
2. X

[/ QUOTE ]

ibew1003 · #36 02-13-2007, 01:49 AM

simple find a new group of ppl to diss as u will find many, lol

jalapenoguy · #37 02-13-2007, 04:15 AM

1. yeah, there are too many dogs at the pound anyways. if you mean that if this one dies another dog will not have a 10 percent chance than my answer would be different.

2. patient y, 10 percent more pain is nothing. both are experienceing pain that makes their lives miserable. let the non smoker live out his days without pain.

Shandrax · #38 02-13-2007, 05:53 AM

[ QUOTE ]
1. If you could somehow cure your migraine headache (that you expect will last an hour) by decreeing that a randomly chosen dog in your city's pound be euthanized three days before it was sheduled to be, would you do it? Assume ther was a ten percent chance it would be adopted in the next few days. Do not assume that the early euthanization meant increased chances for other dogs to survive longer.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this about animals in laboratories?

In any case, I don't want dogs to die only because I got a headache, but I usually smack flies just because they are annoying. Btw, in China they eat dogs for lunch and in India they think rats are holy creatures.

[ QUOTE ]
2. Two people have a week to live and are in intense pain. Assume that you know nothing about them or that they are equal in all circumstances. Except for two things. Patient X's pain is ten percent more excruciating than patient Y's pain. Patient X's illness was caused by the cigarettes about whose warnings he constantly ignored, while patient's Y's illness was through no fault of his own. Only one of those two patients can be given pain medication. Who would you give it to? (Or if you are one of those who resist being put into this spot, change the question to "who would you prefer to see get the medication"?)

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you want lung-cancer patients to lose their health insurance?

In any case, the two should throw dice for it - or better, the doctors should do it.

In medicine only the status quo counts, not how you got there. Otherwise you should never treat any patients who got injured while doing extreme sports or other silly things. Btw, I always wondered why parachute-jumpers wear a helmet.

Artsemis · #39 02-13-2007, 09:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]
In medicine only the status quo counts, not how you got there. Otherwise you should never treat any patients who got injured while doing extreme sports or other silly things.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is only true when you have the capability to treat many patients.

I wouldn't treat those injured during extreme sports before those who were innocently injured, say, by another person -- if I could only treat one.

Vex · #40 02-13-2007, 01:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Any other answer here simply means that you feel the smoker deserves retribution.

[/ QUOTE ]

This has nothing to do with retribution. X's reckless behaviour simply put him last in line for the medication.

[/ QUOTE ]

You've got to do better than that. Give a reason. What you said sounds exactly like "he deserved it". It's retribution. So far, you're just making my point.