Consider the following three scenarios:
(I)
Two patients are dying in hospital, their kidneys failing. There is an innocent bystander in the hallway with two good kidneys. You kill him, and supply each of the patients with one of his transplanted kidneys. Thus, only one person dies, not two.
(II)
You are a small band of resistance fighters. One of your number is captured by the enemy and will interrogated using torture. It is understood that the captured person has a low tolerance for pain and will be unable to resist providing information that will lead to everyone in your band being arrested and killed. Nonetheless, the captured person, though tortured, will not be killed by the enemy, for unspecified political reasons. However, you have the opportunity to kill the captured person, thereby pre-empting the interrogation. You take it. Thus, everyone else in your band is saved.
(III)
An evil dictator has been reigning illegitimately in a foreign country and will kill many more innocent civilians if not deposed. You can attack the country and prevent this killing, but only at the cost of killing an innocent lesser number of civilians. You attack the country, and liberate it.
---
In all three scenarios, you are, figuratively speaking, attempting to make a desirable omelette but only by undesirably breaking some eggs. Lives are always spared by performing an act that, directly or indirectly, results in a smaller number of people dying than would otherwise have been the case; yet, our moral intuitions about which scenarios depict moral actions differ--at least mine do. I think (I) is wrong, and (II) and (III) are debatable. However, I cannot put my finger on why I have these different reactions. Why should the needs of the many not always outweigh the needs of the few?
Aiden
I will respond to the first case scenario (maybe the others later). For me it would be wrong because you are asking someone to do for you (your desire to save the two who need kidneys) what you could do for yourself. Why should the by-stander die instead of you? The obvious answer is that I am me and I'd rather live.
The scenarios you are placing before us ask us to presume knowing the future course of events. We don't. What I am about to say is not to shift the intent of your thread, but say we invade Iraq with the best of intentions to liberate an oppressed people. We do so and war spreads, atrocities multiply, economies spiral into chaos, poor people starve.
Originally posted by kirksey957
I will respond to the first case scenario (maybe the others later). For me it would be wrong because you are asking someone to do for you (your desire to save the two who need kidneys) what you could do for yourself. Why should the by-stander die instead of you? The obvious answer is that I am me and I'd rather live.
Well, let's suppose I have only one kidney already, so I can only save one other person at the cost of killing myself. Why am I not justified in killing an innocent to save more people, especially when I might be justified in one of the other cases?
The scenarios you are placing before us ask us to presume knowing the future course of events. We don't. What I am about to say is not to shift the intent of your thread, but say we invade Iraq with the best of intentions to liberate an oppressed people. We do so and war spreads, atrocities multiply, economies spiral into chaos, poor people starve.
True, but the element of uncertainty alone is not a sufficient argument against taking action. If Iraq had been left alone it is also uncertain what might have happened. Perhaps an internal revolution against Saddam, aided by lifting sanctions, might have turned out to be even more bloody than an external invasion, even with the anarchy afterwards. Who knows? You have to weigh matters up on both sides to make a decision. But the mere presence of uncertainty on either side would not be sufficient grounds for coming down on the other side.
In any case, just assume that you do know the outcome with sufficient likelihood in each case.
Aiden
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeWhat about asking what the person wants?
Consider the following three scenarios:
(I)
Two patients are dying in hospital, their kidneys failing. There is an innocent bystander in the hallway with two good kidneys. You kill him, and supply each of the patients with one of his transplanted kidneys. Thus, only one person dies, not two.
(II)
You are a small band of resistance fighters. One ...[text shortened]... tions. Why should the needs of the many not always outweigh the needs of the few?
Aiden
In situation I the person who's got the good kidneys is likely to say: "Uh...no way dude."
In situation II you shouldn't have enlisted people who will break in the first place. Since you did, it would only be fair to ask them.
In situation III: What does the majority of the population want? And should that count more than an individual?
Difficult. Yes.
Originally posted by Pawnokeyhole(1) you have two kidneys, the innocent bystander has two kidneys. by donating one of your kidneys you save one of the patients. Which inspires the innocent bystanders to do the same, everybody is alive and lives happily ever after.
Consider the following three scenarios:
(I)
Two patients are dying in hospital, their kidneys failing. There is an innocent bystander in the hallway with two good kidneys. You kill him, and supply each of the patients with one of his transplanted kidneys. Thus, only one person dies, not two.
(II)
You are a small band of resistance fighters. One ...[text shortened]... tions. Why should the needs of the many not always outweigh the needs of the few?
Aiden
There are always other options you just have to look harder for them
Originally posted by shavixmir
What about asking what the person wants?
In situation I the person who's got the good kidneys is likely to say: "Uh...no way dude."
Yes, but people often want things that are not objectively for the best. Why should his desires be of paramount importance? Isn't he being selfish, denying two people the chance of life for his one? Don't let ...[text shortened]... ctatorship. I got the impression that no one was really that interested in consulting them.
Aiden
Originally posted by Jay PeateaYour general point is well-taken. However, suppose hypothetically, that the innocent bystander is not going to be altruistically inspired, and I have only one kidney. Why isn't killing the bystander justified by the lives saved?
(1) you have two kidneys, the innocent bystander has two kidneys. by donating one of your kidneys you save one of the patients. Which inspires the innocent bystanders to do the same, everybody is alive and lives happily ever after.
There are always other options you just have to look harder for them
Aiden
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeBecause killing an innocent person is wrong. However if the patients were kylie & J -lo & the bystander happened to be Hilter I'd say you'd have a case.
Your general point is well-taken. However, suppose hypothetically, that the innocent bystander is not going to be altruistically inspired, and I have only one kidney. Why isn't killing the bystander justified by the lives saved?
Aiden
Hmm I wonder if the prisoners on death row carry donor cards ?
Originally posted by Jay PeateaAh, game theory ....
Because killing an innocent person is wrong. However if the patients were kylie & J -lo & the bystander happened to be Hilter I'd say you'd have a case.
Hmm I wonder if the prisoners on death row carry donor cards ?
Jay Peatea: "There are always other options you just have to look harder for them"
Very true ... this is always the major flaw in these cases of "reasoning". There is always the omnipotent "quizzmaster" leading the way. You'll always end up where he wants you to end up.
In my view game theory is manipulating you to accept the quizzmaster's ways of reasoning including the resulting conclusions.
Jay Peatea: "Because killing an innocent person is wrong"
.... and that's the precise notion they (the quizzmasters who practise this kind of closed "reasoning" with their students and public) want to attack and change.
Originally posted by ivanhoeTrue but sometimes the fish is too big and pulls the rod in😉
Jay Peatea: "Because killing an innocent person is wrong"
.... and that's the precise notion they (the quizzmasters who practise this kind of closed "reasoning" with their students and public) want to attack and change.
[/b]
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeEasy-peasy.
Consider the following three scenarios:
(I)
Two patients are dying in hospital, their kidneys failing. There is an innocent bystander in the hallway with two good kidneys. You kill him, and supply each of the patients with one of his transplanted kidneys. Thus, only one person dies, not two.
(II)
You are a small band of resistance fighters. One ...[text shortened]... tions. Why should the needs of the many not always outweigh the needs of the few?
Aiden
1) Ther is no benefit to the person you are killing.
2) The rebel is dying for the cause, presuming this is an armed conflict, that is a choice he made when he signed up.
3) The people get liberated, for those that die it is still a benefit that their family and friends will leed a better life. However this is far more tricky as the desires of the civilians is harder to determine...it could be the case that the majority are in favour of leaving the dictator in place for example.
So to answer your question, it is dependant on whether the people being killed benefit in some way. To put it another way, the needs of the many and the few have to be the same.
MÅ¥HÅRM
Oh yes, my GENERAL response is that I'm inclined to the view that the ends never justify the means. Ends are never entirely predictable, whereas the means are what you are actually capable of making choices about.
If a person chooses to sacrifice themselves, fine, but don't make the choice for them. Eg situation 2: supply all your band with suicide pills for use when captured.
Originally posted by PawnokeyholeLet me see.
Consider the following three scenarios:
(I)
Two patients are dying in hospital, their kidneys failing. There is an innocent bystander in the hallway with two good kidneys. You kill him, and supply each of the patients with one of his transplanted kidneys. Thus, only one person dies, not two.
(II)
You are a small band of resistance fighters. One ...[text shortened]... tions. Why should the needs of the many not always outweigh the needs of the few?
Aiden
I. Wrong to take an action to directly kill a person in the hope of saving two others. There is no certainity it will provide more life - the combined life span of our two may be less than the one healthy person. It would not be right to kill a youth to save two old men.
It may be justifed if the bystander contributed to the kidney failure - say he had poisoned them, Without this justification, why kill this person - why not some other innocent bystander?
Reminds me a litte of "Crime and Punishment' - Raskolnikov resolves to kill an oid miser woman to make himself and his family better off.
2. Easy The comrade has agreed to his own death by joining a resistance group.
3 First, there must be honesty in setting out the reasons for the overthrow. Secondly, these reasons must be valid enough to stand the scrutiny of allies and other human righst respecting countries.Thirdly, it must make things better, not lead to another dictator or civil war. Finally, there must be safeguards to prevent the exploitation of the country by the invaders. Given those, it can be justified.