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?
SOURCE: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stmYour thoughts?
9 comments:
No, it is not right for one person to die in order to save others. There is always an alternative in which all could be saved. In the first one, get other organs from bodies that have already been claimed dead. on the second, everyone could revolt. on the third, pull the brakes. if none of these work then, no one should be killed for the greater whole. If one should die, the rest should too.
I think this brings up an even more interesting question:
"Do the ends justify the means?"
In other words, does the result of an action make the action itself OK? This question certainly deals with it (we have to kill one person to save many--the killing is wrong but it is just because it leads to a moral reward, that is, many people living), but so do others not involving death.
For example, if your family is starving, is it moral to steal bread to feed them? Stealing is wrong, but does the end (people not starving) justify the means (stealing)?
it all depends on who you steal it from. If you're stealing it from a very wealthy person then, yes it is ok, because they can afford to buy more. however, if you kill someone, they can't be brought back.
Exactly--stealing from a rich person produces the greatest happiness, because A) that person still has plenty of money and B) your family doesn't starve.
But isn't stealing still against the law? And how many rich people do you know would be fine with you stealing from them?
I think its okay, to kill one to save many.
if you don't isn't that selfish?
if there's no proof that you did it, you can't be punished.
I object no relation.
If one wants to get really tricky, you could argue the ends-justifying-the-means argument the opposite direction: does killing that one person make a statement that inherently devalues human life? And, further, by devaluing human life, are we--in the long run--actually costing MORE lives than just those five people?
This does bring up another interesting debate: the sanctity of life versus the quality of life. That is, is life utterly sacred (sanctity = sacredness), and should it be preserved in all situations? Or, if someone's quality of life is very poor (say, they are in a coma, or in constant pain), is it OK to end his/her life--especially if it could benefit one or more persons?
if they agree to it.
but who are we to decide who's worthy and who's not?
Post a Comment