A Moral Dilemma

Quote from daniel_m:

but why wappers? WHY is it the "right thing"?

because it's what YOU like? the only reason we should accept the "right thing" is to kill the man because YOU like it?

that's the best you can do?




consider then, the following scenario:

you're a surgeon and your specialty is organ transplants. you have five patients who are certain to die unless they get an organ transplant very soon. among your other patients is a suitable donor who is also in need of surgery. only this patient's condition isn't life threatening.
it would be possible to make a surgical "slip" and take this patients life, thereby obtaining access to his organs to save the other five patients.

would you, again, decide in favor of the majority and take the one man's life? if you wanted to remain consistent with your actions, it seems you'd have to.
More...

If the one person is 'Mr Market' or 'Phantom Trader' or 'Alice' or 'Qarel' then yes, obviously. Stick that knife RIGHT in, fish out a kidney or two, then blame it on Vinny Gigante.


Do you need me to spell out the (rather significant) differences in the two cases from a moral point of view?
 
Quote from daniel_m:



yes please.
More...

Sucker. Killing Mr Market would be doing a service to the community.
Killing Alice would be doing a servcie to Mr Market's wife and other mistresses.
Killing Qarel would be doing a service to the Dutch illegal immigration service.
Killing Phartom Trader would be doing a service to this board.

Killing 5 lill kiddies would be doing a servcie to....????


:-)
 
Quote from Lightningsmurf:

24 is coming to Tokyo in a few weeks. You spoiled the ending....
More...
lol..sorry. :(

p.s. in case you don't know, that's not the end of the season or anything.. it's just one scene.
 
Quote from daniel_m:

i'll take that as a "i have no idea daniel, i just feel the two cases are different"....
More...

OK danny boy. One last time then I really gotta go trade. the futs are already below the S1...

Case 1 - immediate action required with immediate consequence. No condition exists specifying that YOU have responsibility either way. Someone is going to die immediately, whatever you do.

Case 2 - If there is time to remove the dude's organs, and transplant them into 5 kids, then the kids aren't gonna die in the next 30 seconds, r they? (unlike case number 1). Perhaps a sudden miracle cure will be found before they die, it thus becomes a timescale problem. How LIKELY are the kids to die if you take no action vs the prob of some other solution presenting itself. Triage. Unlike case #1, where the probs are 100% and immediate. Secondly, as a doctor, you take an oath. The first and overriding oath is 'to do no harm'. Only then do you get to the bit about 'saving life' etc. Tell me please whether this oath forces you to murder a patient to save other patients?


You seem to be defending some point on the grounds of scale - ie. I get the feeling (and I could be wrong!) that you believe 5 lives dont outweigh 1. Well consider this. Saddam Hussein is about to press a button that will kill 1000 americans. Only YOU can stop him, by shooting him dead. Do you? No? How about 10,000 people? No? How about the entire population of the world APART from saddam and you? At one point do you stop trying to phrase your feelings into a codifiable set of words, and just pull the trigger?

(interestingly enough, this question goes to the heart of trading too! At what point do you stop trying to put numbers on things - eg go short if it penetrates 0.45 etc etc, and just... trade? Answer, usually shortly before you either become successful, or quit).


Oath of Hippocrates. "Above All, Do No Harm".
 
relax wappers :)

personally, i don't think there are any concrete reasons to support either position -- i hold all morality as being subjective. i just thought it would be fun to see on what grounds people try to justify their decisions.


Quote from Wappers2:

Case 2 - If there is time to remove the dude's organs, and transplant them into 5 kids, then the kids aren't gonna die in the next 30 seconds, r they? (unlike case number 1). Perhaps a sudden miracle cure will be found before they die, it thus becomes a timescale problem. How LIKELY are the kids to die if you take no action vs the prob of some other solution presenting itself. Triage. Unlike case #1, where the probs are 100% and immediate. Secondly, as a doctor, you take an oath. The first and overriding oath is 'to do no harm'. Only then do you get to the bit about 'saving life' etc. Tell me please whether this oath forces you to murder a patient to save other patients?
More...

well, i could quite easily say it IS a time scale problem. ie, these 5 kids have just been in an accident and they require urgent treatment. no chance for any other cure except to take this guys life.

also, can you tell me why a doctor MUST stick to the oath he took? could there not possibly be overriding circumstances?


You seem to be defending some point on the grounds of scale - ie. I get the feeling (and I could be wrong!) that you believe 5 lives dont outweigh 1. Well consider this. Saddam Hussein is about to press a button that will kill 1000 americans. Only YOU can stop him, by shooting him dead. Do you? No? How about 10,000 people? No? How about the entire population of the world APART from saddam and you?
More...

you're right. although in the train example, i would still prefer to let the 5 die rather than murder the one, depending on the numbers i'd at some point change my mind.


At one point do you stop trying to phrase your feelings into a codifiable set of words, and just pull the trigger?
More...

that was actually the whole point of this little exercise... to see if we can actually reach any objective way of deciding when it is and isn't ok to kill.

as your inability (or unwillingess) to demonstrate exactly why your moral view on killing should be objectively accepted shows, i remainly firmly convinced that there is no such way to decide and that all moral decisions are essentially subjective.

later...
 
r subjective dude - we make em on the basis of information reaching us via our senses. As we create our own internal worlds from these inputs, by definition they are subjective.

BTW, the other reason why the two scenarios are different is that examined closely, the first scenario links the fates of the 2 parties in a bi-directional way. i.e. it is a consequence of YOU sending the train onto the kids that allows the man to live, or it is a direct consequence of YOUR action sending the train onto the man that allows the kids to live.

Your second scenario, although superficially similar, lacks this consequentiality - namely that the death of the man does not guarantee the life of the children and vice versa.

They would be comparable if BOTH sides had life threatening illnesses, and only ONE side could be saved by cannibilising the other, with the proviso that if you did nothing, one side would 'miraculously' recover.

You really dont want to open THAT can of worms as there are plenty of nut jobs on this site who will give you the benefits of their stories re how their aunty was sliced up so a rich private patient etc etc etc

But I do take your point re the arbitrariness of the decision making process (or lack of decision making process).

R U short 2day?
 
Ok, after my other post about the dead broad, i know i won't be taken seriously but here goes.


You save the children....Always...It's our innate human sense to always save the children ( and in some cases the women, although with chicks like Alice out there, i am seriously reconsidering this :D )

They are our future...they are the reason we are on earth ( contrary to popular opinion)...the man has lived, maybe not as long as he wanted to but he's still lived to adulthood.....The children always come first and if any of you have kids you know what im talking about.....Plus after the train hits the man, the kids can use his severed head as a soccer ball!!!!!!:D :D
 
Quote from daniel_m:

Gekko: so, essentially, you think it's OK to kill a completely innocent man in order to save the lives of others? [/B]
More...

If they are children..there would be no doubt in my mind. I dont think this would fall under the "KILL" category.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top