moral/ethical dilemma

[kmcguffee 0]

Can you throw the switch half way so that the train is stopped without going down either track?
How about shooting the trains tires out? j/k
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[GrumpySmurf 0]

I was thinking strictly in a Criminal Law sense, not so much in a Tort Law sense - aye, I don't like that 'sue' word much either. In really warped way, our laws are somewhat based upon what our society believes to be morally just. In this case, taking an action that would knowingly sacrifice the life of 1 to save the lives of 5 could be seen as 'wrong' vs. doing nothing, saving the life of 1 and allowing 5 to die - even though saving the lives of 5 at the expense of 1 would be of greater benefit - the right to Life of an Indivdual is held in the higest regard in our civilization, to the point it is unacceptable for an *INDIVIDUAL* to knowingly take that life, even if it serves the greater good. At least that's my take/opinion on it.*shrug*

[freaksister 0]

yikes! this is too much for me - i haven't had my meds today - or yesterday for that matter - i think i better avoid this thread from now on...
Sis
Wasting away again in Margaritaville....

[GrumpySmurf 0]

Quote

i haven't had my meds today

Willing to share?

• Quote

[billvon 3,095]

OK, from the runaway freight car problem:
3 replies "sacrifice the one to save the five"
1 reply "allow the five to die"
3 weasel replies "I'd do something else . . ."
Next moral dilemma:
You are a doctor and are caring for five patients. Each will die within the month, from liver failure, kidney failure, cardiac problems etc. A patient comes in to the ER from a car accident. He is unconscious but will regain consciousness in a few days and recover fully. During his care he is tissue typed and you realize that he is a perfect match for the five patients who will die.
Do you sacrifice him to save the other 5?
-bill von

[ChromeBoy 0]

Quote

Do you sacrifice him to save the other 5?

Tell the guy the circumstance and let him be the one to make the decision. If they just did it it would be murder. I would probably say no though.

[Sebazz1 2]

The train thing - Let the one die
The organ thing - No, those organs belong to him......... Without doubt no on this one.
Sebazz........

[PhreeZone 20]

The doctor.... you must let the 5 die. You have sworen an oath to do no harm.
The train, the needs of the whole out weigh the needs of the few.... let the one die to save the rest.
If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny, consume you it will....

[kmcguffee 0]

Absolutely not.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[lummy 4]

Uh.... puit the switch to Neither (in the middle) and have the Freight train derail right at the switch (getting out of the way first of course)
What'd I win?
One shot... HEY!!! Mas Tequila!!!! Two Shots HEY HEY!!!! Three Shots.......

[billvon 3,095]

Most replies seem to be something along the lines:
>The train thing - Let the one die
>The organ thing - No, those organs belong to him......... Without doubt no on
>this one.
Which is the common response.
Now the $64,000 question - what's the difference between the two scenarios? Why is it OK to intentionally kill a man with a train car to save 5 others, but not intentionally kill him with a scalpel to save 5 others? And why do people seem to universally _see_ a difference?
-bill von

[hisgoofyness 0]

Well, one is viewed as an accident the other is viewed as murder.
Also, with all organ replacements there is the chance the body will not accept the donated organ. So why kill to take that chance 5 times?
hisgoofyness
"you "almost" stood that up..." SV

[lummy 4]

What's the difference?
THe Dr, has taken a professional and moral oath to not knowingly take a life (okay, I can't remember the EXACT latin quote) and is bound by that. It is his professional duty to abide by this.
The train scenario is a "lesser of two evils"and therefore just a moral dilemna....
(although I'm still looking for the Mac Gyver stunt to pull it off with ALL surviving) A chopper!!! Yeah!! A Medivac that 's transporting Organs.... WOO HOO!!!!!
One shot... HEY!!! Mas Tequila!!!! Two Shots HEY HEY!!!! Three Shots.......

[billvon 3,095]

>Well, one is viewed as an accident the other is viewed as murder.
Why is it an accident when you take an action (throwing a switch) that causes the death of a man, but is murder when you take an action (organ harvesting) that causes the death of a man? Are medical ethics different than 'worker' ethics?
-bill von

[hisgoofyness 0]

well i think it just a matter of someone "has" to die in the train scenario and most choose to save 5 and sacrifice 1, in the medical instance the 5 are already terminally ill and the other man has a shot at full recovery, and as i said before there is no guarantee in organ donations, so why take a life away that would be fully recovered shortly to take a "chance" at saving 5
i understand where you are going with this, but everyone at some point in life has to make a decision based on what they believe to be the right thing to do, and obviously not everyone has the same belief structure
ok i will stop rambling now
hisgoofyness
"you "almost" stood that up..." SV

[GrumpySmurf 0]

The '1' should not suffer for what is the misfortune of the '5', with which the '1' had nothing to do with. Again a question of the rights of the individual vs. the rights of the group. If the individual had caused the suffering of the group, then line of which rights are be violated becomes somewhat more blurred, and an opinion much more difficult for form.

[gemini 0]

Another scene:
You are a 20 yr old 2nd Lt Platoon leader. 3 of your 10 man squads are trapped by enemy fire and will all die unless the enemy fire is diverted. You have no communications outside your platoon. You have one 10 man squad in reserve. You can send them to flank the enemy and draw the fire away from the trapped 30. All 10 of the reserve squad will die in the rescue attempt. Do you send them? Does if make a difference if you go with them?
Gemini
... Let go dude! I can't land with you hanging on!...

[freeflir29 0]

Quote

Do you send them?

That one is easy......What's the mission? If those 3 are essential to the mission or the enemy force that has them pinned is part of your objective of course you send them. If your men and the enemy force isn't part of your mission. Sorry...... They will die heros as they provided such a great diversion or they will overcome the enemy with superior skill and rejoin you to finish the objective. The latter is much better but not always reality.
"Here I come to save the BOOBIES!"

[Hooknswoop 19]

I would throw the switch and save the one patient, hoping that a suitable donor became available before the 5 died.
What if a Dr. was at the railroad switch? Could he throw the switch to save the 5, sacraficing the 1?
"You are a 20 yr old 2nd Lt Platoon leader. 3 of your 10 man squads are trapped by enemy fire and will all die unless the enemy fire is diverted. You have no communications outside your platoon. You have one 10 man squad in reserve. You can send them to flank the enemy and draw the fire away from the trapped 30. All 10 of the reserve squad will die in the rescue attempt. Do you send them? Does if make a difference if you go with them?"
Why do I think this isn't hypothetical?
Hook

[FallingILweenie 0]

The doctor thing is different from the railroad thing in that the man 's organs belong to HIM. They are HIS. So not only would he be dying by your choice, you would be stealing his own organs to save the others. In the train example, he happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. In that case, though, i would not hit the switch because it comes down to I would feel directly responsable for the one man's death (without all the legal mumbo-jumbo) whereas the 5 were going to die anyway since they had the bad luck to be there with the switch pointing the track in that way.
"Marge, it takes 2 people to lie. One to lie and one to listen."
-Homer

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

Now the $64,000 question - what's the difference between the two scenarios? Why is it OK to intentionally kill a man with a train car to save 5 others, but not intentionally kill him with a scalpel to save 5 others? And why do people seem to universally _see_ a difference?

Ahh Bill von, what good classic ethical questions you pose (and food for thought as usual)!!
In scenario (1) the "Train Car Dilemma", most people choose to sacrifice the one person for the good of many people because it seems to have the best results of a bad situation even though they have to take direct action to kill the one person.
In scenario (2) the "5 Patient Problem", most people decide that it would be murder to kill the one to save the many, even though saving 5 people seems to be a better outcome.
According to some ethical doctrines (the Doctrine of Double Effect (DDE) for a classic example), it would be wrong to even kill the one person to save the five with the train car, because "intentionally killing an innocent person is never permissible" even if the resulting good is possibly greater than the bad that results as well according to the DDE. Yet, some better doctrines treat a non-action with the same weight as an action, so it would be 'more' wrong to let the car kill the 5 people since through your non-action 5 people died instead of one.
I was going to write a long essay, but I want to eat soon so I am just going to quickly state that in the second case (if you decide the kill the one person) the notion of personal rights and justice are destroyed and that morality and ethics are more than just what produces the best outcome.
To save time I propose another thought experiment:
Suppose that there is a heinous racial crime where say a green girl is raped by a blue man. (real colors removed to avoid stupid racial comments) Furthermore, suppose that because of the crime, the green people start rioting which you calculate will result in numerous innocents to be killed. Now, suppose you can frame a blue man and have him tried and executed for the crime successfully. If you do this you will save many innocent lives at only the cost of the one blue man. Is this morally right?
The answer is that obviously it is morally wrong because to murder the blue man even though it saves many lives destroys the notion of personal rights and justice.
People believe that they have intrinsic value and rights and that it should not be violated for any reason. That is one reason why they answer negative on the second one. However, on the first they possibly believe that non-action is just as bad as action and decide for the lesser of evils.
Still, if you think about, it may be just as wrong to kill the one guy in the first scenario as the second, since both require direct action. But, there is more to the scenario than just 1 or 5 and you have to consider the circumstances and other factors just like you consider motive in a crime case. It's not just the mechanics over whether a driver hitting and killing a pedestrian is manslaughter or 3rd degree murder (or whatever i'm no lawyer), but motive and circumstance of the driver.
So that's my quick and incomplete answer, but I think it's enough that will people get the idea.
(time for pizza)

[PLFKING 4]

How does electricity work ?
Don

[Sinkster 0]

Quote

How does electricity work ?

Your quest begins here.

[kmcguffee 0]

Quote

All 10 of the reserve squad will die in the rescue attempt. Do you send them? Does if make a difference if you go with them?

Yes, you send them and, as the platoon leader, you must go with them. The platoon leader almost always goes with the main effort and, in this case, the flanking squad is the main effort.
"Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go."

[SpeedRacer 1]

Quote

How does electricity work ?

Get a bunch of electrons and train them to march in a straight line along a wire.
Moral dillema: Your girlfriend is out of town for the weekend. You go to a bar, where nobody knows you, by yourself to have a drink & start chatting up this gorgeous, large-breasted babe. You wind up giving her a lift home & she invites you in for uh, coffee (heh heh). You now are faced with a moral dillema: Remain faithful to your girlfriend, even though she'll probably never find out...or go in there & shag this babe. So my question to you is...........
.........................Which positions would you use?
Speed Racer
"Fill your hand, you son-of-a-bitch!"