SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS, all caps.

[Donald Trump]

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?

Your responses?

 

[der Astronom]

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?

That depends on whether or not Bill wants to kill himself for these five people. I do not believe that he should be killed without his consent. I do not believe anyone has the right to choose who lives and who dies except when it comes to yourself.

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.)

That depends on who the hostages are. If I know one at least one of the hostages doesn't get along with the other five and myself, I might as well choose to kill him. If they're all assholes, they might as well all be dead. If there is at least one person I know in the hostages I do not want to see dead, I would have to choose to kill one of the hostages; at least the person I do not want to see dead will not be killed. If I don't know who any of the hostages are at all, it wouldn't really matter to me whether one person dies or five; they're all the same because I don't really know them.

 

[Aztec Triogal]

lol I think it's pretty much an open/shut case with what Decado said. The reason you can't compare the first and other situations is because in the first a major option is to let a perfectly healthy person live, while in the others it is only chosing between killing one or killing five. It's not the same.

Besides, if this is an organ-driven arguement, why not start a convo up about cloning. That way you didn't have to kill anybody and everybody lives

 

[Big Casino]

No bill has the right to live, i dont believe you could justify killing someone in that kinda situation.
The hostages, well lets face it it would be pointless for everyone to die, i think in a situation like that your focused on surviving and yeah you would probably choose someone if you had no other choice. As for the train thing, i dont wanna go off topic but youd have to think really fast and your first instinct would probably be to slam on the brakes, not debate over who to run over lol.

 

[Donald Trump]

It comes down to neccessity. In the second situation, you ONLY have 2 choices, in the first situation, you have many choices.

How so?
It comes down to the fact that either bill dies, or the five others die, ceterus paribus.
Then the only difference between the last and first situation is the practical application. It's much easier to allow someone to be hit by a train than actually kill someone. But besides that there is no real difference between the situations.

 

[Donald Trump]

Theres a massive difference. In choice 2 you're choosing who to spare. In choice 1 you actually have to KILL someone, someone who otherwise is in no danger of dying. In choice 2, both parties are in danger of dying. In choice one, only 1 party is in danger of dying, so there is no need to bring party 2 into it.

Make sense now?

So the difference is that bill would have died anyway?
But people die anyway, and the same principle applies, you are sacrificing one life to save another 5.

What if in the first situation bill was an old man? Would it make a difference to your answer?

 

[Aztec Triogal]

His point greasy lemon, is that Bill should not even be involved in the first scenario. No one should. You literally have to drag some innocent person into a life or death situation from everyday life. If Bill were in a life or death situation, the answer may be different. Say if you speculated that Bill, a man on death row, could give up his organs and save 5 people... that might be a worthwhile discussion... but for most people the question of "Should I kill a man or let five sick people die" is a no brainer.

 

[Sephiroth Crescent]

Your responses?

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?

I'm gonna have to agree with Decado here, Your basically putting Bill in the position where you want the reader to feel like Bill is worthless because he has no family or loved ones, this doesnt make Bill worthless, hes a living thing that has the right to choose whether he wants to die or 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.)

No offense but this case is quite stupid, any sensible person when given the gun should and would kill the kidnapper, and everyone lives, unless you've pissed your pants out of fear. So yeah....completely different from the first

If bill were an old man, would it make a difference

No, because realistically speaking Bills organs if he were old, wouldn't be worth the effort, so that while it kind of counters the point Decado is trying to make its still invalid.

Im sure theres other choices for the 5 people in need of Bills organs, that doesn't involve killing Bill, what your suggesting is a bit...grotesque.

Allow me to make an example.

Lets say your all climbing a mountain(6 people), all of a sudden one of the hinges comes lose on the climbing equipment, and within 30 seconds if something isn't done all 6 of you will die. However if you cut the rope to the guy on the bottom then 5 of you will live, if not you all die.

Oh and I thought l'eminence grise was the "gray lemon" and not the "greasy lemon" XD.



- Sephiroth

 

[zachen]

Besides, if this is an organ-driven arguement, why not start a convo up about cloning. That way you didn't have to kill anybody and everybody lives

Read House of the Red Scorpion. Then you will see even that is bad.
It is fictional but still............

Mod Edit: Please add more effort to your post as this is considered spam. Thank you.