Should We Kill Healthy People For Their Organs?

DinoFlintstone

"There can be only one!"
#1
  1. 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 not, why not?
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.
  4. But then why not kill Bill?
  1. I'd say, you can't just kill someone for no other reason than to have their organs, however, if it was for five close loved ones, and you volunteered without being asking, then as an extreme, I'd say it might be okay for Bill to be killed.
  2. I'd say it depended on who the hostages were. If they were loved ones, or innocents, then I would fight for them whilst being willing to die. If it was the case that it would be impossible for me to die, then I would use every nanosecond to weigh up and down who I would save and why. I would choose one person to die if it meant saving others.
  3. In the case of saving five people from a tram, I would ordinarily go for the one to save the five, 'however' if the one was my Son, I would kill the five.
  4. Goodnight Bill.
 

ExpectantlyIronic

e̳̳̺͕ͬ̓̑̂ͮͦͣ͒͒h̙ͦ̔͂?̅̂ ̾͗̑
#2
1. No. It just doesn't seem right (unless he volunteers, maybe...).
2. Agree and then shoot him with the gun he gives me. :)
3. Yeah, I'd send the train left.
4. I don't care about my ethical views being excessively coherent.
 
#3
1. If he's volunteering to do it, I'd consider it. Otherwise it's a definite no
2. Shoot the captor. If that's not an option, shoot someone else
3. Move the train left.
4. Because I don't want to and have a reasonable option not to. |:
 
#4
  1. 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 not, why not?
  2. 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.)
  3. 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.
  4. But then why not kill Bill?
1. No. It would not be ok to painlessly kill Bill to save the other 5. I may want him to be killed and think its the logical thing to do, but it would NEVER be ok to do so without his consent.

2. I'd have to agree to that, take the gun, and shoot either him or myself before shooting one of the 6 hostages.

3. This is where it starts to make my head hurt. :shake: After some thought, I think I'd sent the tram to the left, killing the one. [Kinda Edit: not sure about this anymore eeeekk]

4. The tram and the organ senarios are completely different. I know when it boils down to it, its still killing one to save 5.. but its still different and I don't believe you have to use exactly the same morals in each case. I wouldn't kill Bill cos you can't pluck an innocent man from his home and murder him when he has no involvment whatsoever. I think its slightly more reasonable to send the tram to the left, cos that single person tied to the tracks is at least some way involved in the situation already.
But then again, he/she is still one innocent person, just like Bill.
I give up. :nod:
 
Last edited:

Bananas

Endangered Species
#5

1.)
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 not, why not?

Just because someone is without family or loved ones does not make them any less important than those who have family and loved ones. Who is to say his life alone is less important than the five as a collective. can we quantify life in that manner?

2.)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.)
First of all could I trust a kidnapper to do their end of the deal? No.... but If the deal was set in stone and could not be broken then someones going to have to die. That person is going to be dead either way.

If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case?
Because both are different circumstances. In scenario 1 you have a choice between 1 person to live and 5 to die, or vice versa. Whilst in scenario 2 the choice is between 1 to die or all to die.

3.) 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.
You send it to the left, killing the one person. 1 dead or 5 dead? Again unlike in scenario 1 the choice is very different as are the circumstances.

4.)But then why not kill Bill?
Sometimes in life you are forced to make these decisions(scenario 3) whilst at other times you are not(scenario 1).
 

ysabel

/ˈɪzəˌbɛl/ pink 5
#6
No. It sets a precedent of making it ok to kill any healthy person just because some are sick and might benefit from it. Who would want to be healthy after that? :lol:

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.)
Depends on who are the hostages and if I have an affiliation with them. If they're all strangers, the one who irritates me the most will be killed. :mischievous:

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.
Here you have limited time to process things. Instinct will most likely ask me to steer left. Unless I suddenly recognise that the one person is someone I love, then goodbye 5 people.

But then why not kill Bill?
Like I said, killing Bill sets a bad precedent and punishing someone for taking care of himself. He was in a good situation and you're making it bad for him.

In the second example and third example, everyone is already in a bad position (all are hostages, all are tied on the track). Equal footing. My decision isn't going to kill someone who isn't destined to die in the first place (as is the case with Bill), my decision is saving and getting someone out of a bad situation.

And even so, my choice isn't always based on the number of people who would survive (I'm willing to let the train run over 5 people if the other person was someone I know). Numbers alone don't mean anything. I give more importance to my relationship with the people involved or what they mean to me.
 

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
#9
yes they do.

Situation 1: Pending I am 1 of the 5.... Bill would be stronger/healthier/more able than I.... Therefor Strong will Survive. Pending I am not.... I could care less as long as my being is preserved.

Situation 2: Whatever costs to be released. If 5 > 1 (pending I'll be released anyway) than the sacrifice of 1 is for the betterment of my own self preservation.

Situation 3: I would have tried to, but since bill is more able than I.... Its a losing battle for me. Thus Self Preservation < Strong Survive.

Situation 4: read previous.
 
#10
Situation 1: Pending I am 1 of the 5.... Bill would be stronger/healthier/more able than I.... Therefor Strong will Survive. Pending I am not.... I could care less as long as my being is preserved.
So you invented the condition that you're one of the five dying

Situation 2: Whatever costs to be released. If 5 > 1 (pending I'll be released anyway) than the sacrifice of 1 is for the betterment of my own self preservation.
as you will not die regardless of your actions, then it doesn't matter who you kill or not kill. If the 6 others die, you're still free to go.

Situation 3: I would have tried to, but since bill is more able than I.... Its a losing battle for me. Thus Self Preservation < Strong Survive.
What? That has nothing to do with the third situation. Situation three is
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.
Where does bill fit in?