A wierd philosophy problem I have!

Wacker

Hey, is this the right place to ask for opinions on philosophy? I guess I'll find out based on whether or not anyone replies! Please do, this will really help me with an essay I have to write. Imagine the following scenario:


You are the driver of an out-of-control tram, that is heading straight towards four innocent people. You know nothing about them, but you know that if they are hit, none will survive. Your only option is to slam on the turning lever, which will cause you to hit and kill just one equally innocent unknown citizen. There are no other options! Do you hit the lever?



Now, I will assume that everyone would steer towards the one person, right? Well, if that is the case, put yourself in the following situation:



There are four innocent people in hospital. None are smokers, heavy drinkers, etc. One needs a new heart, one needs a lung, one needs a kidney and one needs a spleen. If they don't get them, they will die. If they do, they will live. Period! There is only one person who has the parts to save even one, and she, by co-incidence, has the parts to save all four! Obviously, taking the organs from her will kill her. She is not connected with these people in any way.


Now, assuming in the first example, it is okay to kill one to save four, is it okay to kill the woman in the above example to save the four people in need of organs? And why/ why not?

Thanks!

Kali

In the second you have a choice not to kill anyone, but simply beat the person over the head, knock them unconcsious and take their spare lung and kidney... minimize losses without killing

Wacker

Hmmm, thats interesting.
However: Two people will still die, but if you kill the woman, only one will. Does this mean that you should kill her?

thedrowner

tyhere's a college work board which might help u with this....i think...


i'd let the four die. their bodie's time is up and theyre probably resigned to dying. they are unhealthy wheras the other peroson isnt. theres a differnce in the 2 scenario's in that in the 1st one, they're all healthy, wheras in this one theyre not. theyre dying. medically it'd also be unethical...

bandit

Would you have sex with your mother to save your fathers life?

Sinister Pete

No one is innocent.

the dee

here's another problem for you: you are an ambulance driver, you're rushing to save someone and run over someone else. If you stop to help the person you ran over the person you were rushing to help will die. If you don't stop the person you ran over will die. What do you do?

metalish

You lost me half way through that but as Sinister Pete says no one is innocent but the four people should be saved because that person in the car killed an un knowen person so in fairness the driver should give the organs to the four people.

thedrowner

i think u did get lost there metalish


see when u think about it, every day theres 4 (and probably loads more) people who would get diagnosed with those illnesses, and loads of people (forgetting about blood types and matching organs etc) who could donate to save all 4 lives by dying yet the organs used to save those 4 people's lives are not taken from a healthy living person, theyre taken from someone who, by an unlucky chance, have died recently.

johnnynolegs

i don't think it is rite to puposely kill anyone therefore if at least one person has to die in the first then obviously u would rather just one instead of 4

however in the second scenario they are already dying so how can u take away the life of one person who is completely healthy

darthmise

The differnence is in the first option if you don't act no one else can.
The second one, the sub-conscious thinking is " someone else can make this decision." If you don't act maybe someone else will.

In the first scenario you don't have 100% control.
Your hand isn't forced in the second scenario, you can walk away.


Thats how i would justify letting the 4 die.

lamda

Originally posted by Wacker

You are the driver of an out-of-control tram, that is heading straight towards four innocent people. You know nothing about them, but you know that if they are hit, none will survive. Your only option is to slam on the turning lever, which will cause you to hit and kill just one equally innocent unknown citizen. There are no other options! Do you hit the lever?

No you dont hit the lever....why dont the four people get out of the way??? if these four dumbasses dont notice an out of control tram hurtling towards them..... then they are too stupid to live.

jonny

people should stop playing God.
let em die, if we keep on saving peoples lives and having so much sex, none of us will be happy.

johnnynolegs

what the hell has sex got to do with this????

GerK

Originally posted by Wacker
Hey, is this the right place to ask for opinions on philosophy? I guess I'll find out based on whether or not anyone replies! Please do, this will really help me with an essay I have to write. Imagine the following scenario:


You are the driver of an out-of-control tram, that is heading straight towards four innocent people. You know nothing about them, but you know that if they are hit, none will survive. Your only option is to slam on the turning lever, which will cause you to hit and kill just one equally innocent unknown citizen. There are no other options! Do you hit the lever?



Now, I will assume that everyone would steer towards the one person, right? Well, if that is the case, put yourself in the following situation:



There are four innocent people in hospital. None are smokers, heavy drinkers, etc. One needs a new heart, one needs a lung, one needs a kidney and one needs a spleen. If they don't get them, they will die. If they do, they will live. Period! There is only one person who has the parts to save even one, and she, by co-incidence, has the parts to save all four! Obviously, taking the organs from her will kill her. She is not connected with these people in any way.


Now, assuming in the first example, it is okay to kill one to save four, is it okay to kill the woman in the above example to save the four people in need of organs? And why/ why not?

Thanks!

These are pretty poor scenarios, as has been said before, in the first there is no control, obviously in a case of a tragic accident you try your best to minimize the loss of life.

The second scenario is trying to bait you into using pure logic to bring the Marxist ideal of "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs." to a perverse and radical extreme.
In terms of only logic, you obviously use one resource to extinction to repair 4 resources. Mathematically its the only option. However anyone with any functioning moral or ethical compass could never murder one person to cannibalize them for the sake of others as it would require them to make a decision of whose life/lives were more worthwhile, and that path leads to madness.

Wacker

GerK, I'm thinking you are about right there.