"There can be only one!"
- 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?
- 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?
- 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.
- 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.
- 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.
- Goodnight Bill.