Three other questions can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm
------------------------------------------------------
1. 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?
- posted on 11/21/2008
Kill Bill Kill Bill. (Just can't resist. I actually am not a big Quentin Tarantino fan. ;-))
Let me take a crack at this.
It's not comparable to the kidnapper case. Because the one who's asked to make the decision is potentailly a direct beneficiary to his choice. It's like asking one of the sick men to make the decision whether to kill Bill or not. And I don't think any "civilized" society can condone this.
It's more muddled in the tram track case. I think ultimately it's not comparable because on one hand dying of disease is a natural occurrence but killing a healthy person is unnatural. Therefore, you leave the outcome to God. As far as the tram operator goes, he is set up to play God one way or the other, he might as well choose the least harmful.
- Re: ZT: SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?posted on 11/21/2008
The question to me is: Is Bill going to die very soon anyway whether he is killed or not? If no (most likely so given that he is healthy), then there is no comparison to the other two cases.
Questions aside, I thought that people were already doing that; organ trafficking is a lucrative business. - Re: ZT: SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?posted on 11/21/2008
I would not kill Bill. Because if you kill him, he is dead for sure, and the other five might not survive the organ transplant. But if you don't kill him, there *might* be other ways to save the other five. Sometimes there are miracles.
In the other two cases, the one or the five are going to die in the same way (killed by gun or by tram), so the chance of miracle is equal for the one or the five. Do the math, kill one and save five. - posted on 11/21/2008
它几个hypotheticals好象去年在哪本书里读过,一时想不起书名了。只起来在同小凤讨论时,她坚持要把"Bill"变成死囚才愿回答。这些hypotehticals应该都是Hegel的经典道德两难(村民是否愿意牺牲一个儿童来换取一村人的生命)的衍生。不过所有讨论都会是非常有意思,并可用于解决BAILOUT之争。
Susan wrote:
Three other questions can be found here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm ------------------------------------------------------
1. 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?
- Re: ZT: SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?posted on 11/21/2008
See the quiz below. Notice how slightly the scenario is changed and yet how different your decision would be.
http://www.time-blog.com/graphics_script/2007/moralityquiz/index.html
My answers are: N, Y, Y, N, N - Re: ZT: SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?posted on 11/21/2008
Susan wrote:
My answers are: N, Y, Y, N, N
Y, Y, Y, N, N
the first one... because i would be killed if i don't do it, and as a result my own babies would die or become orphans... so i could justify my action. - Re: ZT: SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?posted on 11/21/2008
Actually we can justify all the “yes” answers. What is questioning here is not what we should do, but what we would/could do. In many situations we know what should be done, but can we really carry it out?
阿姗 wrote: - posted on 11/21/2008
我的决定是根据上次看到的这篇文章
http://www.mayacafe.com/forum/topic1sp.php3?tkey=1204855802
“带着年幼的孩子,最恐怖的是无法通过敌人的封锁线,孩子不懂事,一出声响,一哭,就全暴露了。曾经有过不止一次的惨痛教训,过封锁线时,捂着孩子的嘴,封锁线过了,孩子也被捂死了。所以,必须把多余的孩子送给老乡,或者交给组织。”
我觉得也许我是可以做到的,尤其是如果我的孩子就在身旁。我只能希望,孩子命大,不会被捂死。
Susan wrote:
Actually we can justify all the “yes” answers. What is questioning here is not what we should do, but what we would/could do. In many situations we know what should be done, but can we really carry it out?
Please paste HTML code and press Enter.
(c) 2010 Maya Chilam Foundation