Should we kill healthy people in order to save the lives of others?

[hughesie27]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

[Rawrrrrrrr]

Is he a celtic supporter?

[hughesie27]

Called Bill?

 

Any actual answer though?

[chewbacca]

if he`s a bad bad man, like a lifer in prison or on death row, why the hell not?

[scott_jambo]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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 he wanted to die then i would have to think a little before saying no. But if you are saying we should murder people then i think most answers would definitely be NO!

[scooba1874]

hughesie, what u on about? who cares

[Dr. Bapswent]

hughesie, what u on about? who cares

 

Its Philiosophy basics.

 

Study of ethics.

 

Circular argument.

[Maximus]

No. What is the point of saving others?

[Super T]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

 

I would say dependant on what team they support!

[hughesie27]

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?

 

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

 

Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven years. You might instead say you're an organism, a particular human being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.

 

But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.

 

But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if the surgeons didn't implant your brain in Bush's skull, but merely scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush's pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House would again be you.

 

But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once.

 

In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works. You are not the person who started reading this article.

 

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

 

What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths.

Muller-Lyer illusion

Are things always as they seem? The Muller-Lyer illusion indicates not

 

But this, you might reply, doesn't show that the senses cannot provide good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it's about to rain.

 

Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is right 99% of the time. After that, surely, its readings can be good reasons to believe it will rain.

 

Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

 

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

 

Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.

 

After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.

 

And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.

 

Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

[Ryan Gosling]

Of course you shouldn't kill him.

[chewbacca]

1) when the kidnapper hands you the gun to shoot one of the hostages, turn and shoot the kidnapper.

 

2) Soul, not being.

 

3) yor senses may not be reliable, but you only have your senses to rely, which is more a question of perception.

 

4) i never chose to read this article, boredom dictated tghat i do so, although boredom is a self produced emotion.

[Captain Lithuania]

Nobody should be killed. Any the likelihood of a person not having any family or loved ones is very unlikely.

[MackaysCentreSpot]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

 

Is a little voice inside your head telling you to ask this?

 

There is places for people who come out with things like this. You will have your own we room with nice padded walls and you get to wear a nice little jacket as well.

 

Stay where you are, they will be there for you soon.

[Miller Jambo 60]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

Rapes murderers child killers yes.

Mind you would i want bits from a killer etc

the idea sounds good but the pc brit wont let it happen

[hughesie27]

Rapes murderers child killers yes.

Mind you would i want bits from a killer etc

the idea sounds good but the pc brit wont let it happen

:107years:

[wibble]

Do yer own homework Hughsie. The collective intelligensia of JKB won't help anyway. :p:p

[redjambo]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

No. Next question.

[hughesie27]

Do yer own homework Hughsie. The collective intelligensia of JKB won't help anyway. :p:p

It isn't homework just a good question to ask yourself.

[shaun.lawson]

Answer: no. And if I was in a group of kidnapped people and the kidnappers said they'd set everyone else free if one was killed, I'd volunteer myself.

[Ryan Gosling]

It isn't homework just a good question to ask yourself.

 

It's not really.

 

Answer: no. And if I was in a group of kidnapped people and the kidnappers said they'd set everyone else free if one was killed, I'd volunteer myself.

 

I wouldn't.

[shaun.lawson]

 

I wouldn't.

 

I'm stupid like that though.

[Brandt]

If a law was being debated that when you die your body would basically be donated for medical use would anybody vote for it? Serious question. I mean think of the millions of lives that would be saved due to it. I know the argument against that it would hurt to have your arm cut off when your dead () to give someone the chance to have one when in need but, would you see it like this. I mean our life is over but would you donate it for this use or let it rot in a coffin or burnt in the.. em thing that its burnt in. Its a nice idea but i can see the point in not wanting it. I'm a bit drunk by the way

[Scott_HMFC1874]

Read a book with the same kind of questions.

difficult question really.

 

Morally its wrong. No question there.

 

 

This book brought up many philisophical issues. Like toying with the idea that it wasnt infact God that created the heavens and earth but the Devil.

Not that i believe in any of that stuff, but still some interesting points brought up in favour of said issue.

[redjambo]

I'm stupid like that though.

 

If I ever travel to any countries where I'm likely to be kidnapped, remind me to take you with me.

[Buffalo Bill]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

It depends....

 

 

 

...if his first name is 'Buffalo'.

 

 

 

.

[Miller Jambo 60]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

YES Pedos murderers and IRA lovers simple.

[portobellojambo1]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

 

No.

 

However if such a person existed, and had no family, no loved ones, and wished to take their own life, that is something else,then they are making the decision.

 

Once I am dead I really don't care what happens to my body parts, they will be of no use to me. If I get cut into pieces and the various organs taken to help others so be it.

[BigC]

YES Pedos murderers and IRA lovers simple.

 

Just IRA lovers, or lovers of all terrorist organisations?

[Commander Harris]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

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?

why painlessly? If the end does justify the means then why bother about the subjective experience of someone that's going to be dead and used for parts in a few minutes anyway.

[hughesie27]

I posted this above but it may not be clear that it is a part of the original question.

For those saying no then I'd urge you to come up with answers for the other 2 scenarios.

 

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?

[portobellojambo1]

I posted this above but it may not be clear that it is a part of the original question.

For those saying no then I'd urge you to come up with answers for the other 2 scenarios.

 

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?

 

In relation to the above two scenarios the original scenario you posted is completely different. In the original scenario you were talking about killing someone in the hope his organs would save other people, no guarantees that would be the case. Many people receive donated organs and reject them.

 

Within the other two scenarios someone presently alive is going to die anyway, whichever option you choose. This again does not apply in scenario one, where if you choose not to kill him he will ultimately live, even if lonely and unhappy, and there is no guarantee others will survive if you do kill him.

 

If given the option of not killing (scenario 1 in original post) I would go for that, options 2 & 3 only give you a choice of how many you want to kill, most people would select the lower number, unless they were in the killing game.

[hughesie27]

In relation to the above two scenarios the original scenario you posted is completely different. In the original scenario you were talking about killing someone in the hope his organs would save other people, no guarantees that would be the case. Many people receive donated organs and reject them.

 

Within the other two scenarios someone presently alive is going to die anyway, whichever option you choose. This again does not apply in scenario one, where if you choose not to kill him he will ultimately live, even if lonely and unhappy, and there is no guarantee others will survive if you do kill him.

 

If given the option of not killing (scenario 1 in original post) I would go for that, options 2 & 3 only give you a choice of how many you want to kill, most people would select the lower number, unless they were in the killing game.

Suppose that in SC1 that if you kill him his organs will save the lives of 5 other 'Bills'.

 

Then this means that SC1 is just like SC2 + SC3 where you either save 1 or kill 5.

[Ryan Gosling]

I posted this above but it may not be clear that it is a part of the original question.

For those saying no then I'd urge you to come up with answers for the other 2 scenarios.

 

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?

 

In the first case, I'd shoot someone to save myself.

[Kalamazoo Jambo]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

 

No - unless we're talking about a particularly lovely pair of Wurlitzers.

[stanlet]

my head hurts

[chester copperpot]

Kill Bill.

[Bathjambo]

Eh guess so.Some pan fried liver with onion gravy would perk me up:thumbs_up:

[hughesie27]

Eh guess so.Some pan fried liver with onion gravy would perk me up:thumbs_up:

Think you should be in the quick snack thread.