Moral dilemma 3

[jakee 1,598]

Quote

That's the $64,000 question. Most people see a moral distinction between the subway case and the hospital case. The question is - why?

Possibly due to the scale of the intervention. Pressing a button in the subway just isn't the same as cutting someone up and dishing out their body parts.

Also the subway thing would be a split second kind of thing, while the hospital case would involve much more time to think about the decision.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[Shotgun 1]

Easy answer for any moral dilemma... Call the Church immediately, as that is the only place to find the correct answer.

[IanHarrop 43]

Is the man George W.... oops... maybe this should be in SC?

"Where troubles melt like lemon drops, away above the chimney tops, that's where you'll find me" Dorothy

[Jib 0]

Quote

>In the other thread you were willing to kill on person to save ten. What's the difference?

That's the $64,000 question. Most people see a moral distinction between the subway case and the hospital case. The question is - why?

In your first scenario, someone has to die imminently. In the later, the healthy one is not endangered whatsoever by any imminent danger. Instead, there are people which will die at some point in the future of natural causes.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[billvon 3,121]

>In the later, the healthy one is not endangered whatsoever by
>any imminent danger.

?? In this example, the guy is injured but in no danger of death. He will recover fully.

[Jib 0]

I meant in the subway case, someone healthy is going to die of unnatural causes; the question is how many.

--------------------------------------------------
the depth of his depravity sickens me.
-- Jerry Falwell, People v. Larry Flynt

[mardigrasbob 0]

Quote

>In the later, the healthy one is not endangered whatsoever by
>any imminent danger.

?? In this example, the guy is injured but in no danger of death. He will recover fully.

Kind of like embryonic research?

--------------

[Vallerina 2]

The time factor is what is different in the two cases, hence the two different sets of answers. When death is more imminent, it changes the answers.

There's a thin line between Saturday night and Sunday morning

[happythoughts 0]

The next logical step would be to clone yourself (as an anencephallic) so that you could use the copy of yourself for spare parts when needed. No problem with a rejection because it is your DNA.

Of course, we could break this off into another discussion of vegetarianism vs carnivores too. Raising animals for consumption.

[Amazon 7]

Quote

But I have picked earthworms up off the hot sidewalk and returned them to the dirt to live again

AWWW Wendy... you always make me smile.

GAD I dont know how many times I have done that.. maybe its the gardener in me.. to return them from the parking lot where they will be run over.... to the soil where they can imporve it. Maybe its a karma thing too for all the earthworms I killed when I was little by feeding them to fish( on a hook)

[RoysPlayThing 0]

that is so sweet..

_______________________________________________
My mind is like a parachute...it functions only when open.

[livendive 8]

Quote

So you're basing the difference on the hipocratic oath?

Sort of/pretty much. In the physician's case, he has a moral duty to the man, and his moral duty to the others does not allow him to break that. In the train case, the person (me) has a moral duty first to any passengers on the train. He is compelled to kill the 10 people if it will prevent the car they're riding in from derailing. If no passengers are involved, his duty is to life in general with no particular bias toward either side of the tracks, therefore killing the one and saving the 10 is the better choice.

Another difference has already been alluded to, that being the difference in cause of death. In the train case, people will die as a result of actions taken by the transit authority...you have to pick which one(s). In the hospital scenario, people will die as a result of their illnesses/injuries, not any action taken by hospital staff (unless the physician decides to harvest the tissue regardless of the fact that it's not in that person's best interests).

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[bobsled92 0]

Quote

You are a doctor on call at a huge city hospital. A man comes in from a car wreck. He is unconscious and banged up but will almost certainly recover. While he is being examined, it is determined that he is a perfect tissue type for ten people in the hospital who will all certainly die without immediate transplants. Is it OK to use the unconscious man's body to save the other 10?

THE OATH, he should be saved as it is.

_______________________________
If I could be a Super Hero,
I chose to be: "GRANT-A-CLAUS". and work 365 days a Year.
http://www.hangout.no/speednews/