• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

Kreton

Doesn't know
DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 11, 2011
Messages
13,350
Reaction score
6,591
Location
Across the street from the family across the stree
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Independent
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?
 
Absolutely not. One man's life is not more important than another's, except in that he can take care of himself, and in what he, himself, can do. Six men's lives are not more important than one man's life. Majority does not imply superiority.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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 can't imagine killing anyone in your scenerio. I would rationalize that the kidnapper was not to be believed. As to killing a person to harvest their organs, that's just plain ridiculous.

The Lifeboat Dilemma is still the best moral dilemma for discussion, in my opinion.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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 wouldn't re-route a tram to kill one to save 5. If the tram hits 5 people it is not my fault. If the tram hits that one person because I sent it that way, then it becomes my fault. :2wave:

As for Bill and the lives he could save, sucks to be those five people.
 
If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case?

For the second example, assuming there is no other option, yeah, I would make Sophie's Choice and shoot one of the kidnapped victims, because, presumably, he'd be dead regardless, wheres Bill can live a long and prosperous life. Killing Bill would just be murder, IMHO.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?

Who picks Bill and was that due process?


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.)

You are given a choice to commit murder and be set free or not to commit murder and be set free, what makes you better off being set free only to be later convicted as murderer?

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?

The tram dilemma is tricky but assumes that taking the left turn is also best for the survival of those aboard the run away tram and that what you see immediately in front of you is all that need be considered. There could be more (as yet unseen) tied to the tracks on the left (just out of sight) and going straight may avoid derailing the tram by making the optional turn.
 
"Leave no man behind" Even if you lose 10 men to save one this is the way we do it in America. It is our culture not only in the military but with fire fighters and citizens on the street that pull people from burning cars.
 
China does.

In China if you are arrested for anything that "might" be considered a capital crime the first thing you get is a physical exam. If you are healthy and have no diseases your trial will be very quick, and your execution likely within the week. There is an ambulance and doctor at your execution so they can harvest your organs for the elites.

This is how health care works for the elites in a society - notice the elites aren't part of the obamacare program.
 
It his a discussion topic in your freshman Philosophy of Ethics 301 class?
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?

There's value in a man's liberty that you can't just take away, even in order to save more lives. Although, I will say that I break with others on here and say that value isn't infinite. For instance if not killing Bill would cause every other living thing in the universe to instantly begin to die in the most painful way possible, I would say it is right to kill him. In the real world, I cannot think of a scenario where that is the case though.

For the second scenario. Yeah I'd shoot one of the other hostages. He'd die anyway if I didn't. I don't see that one as being too much of a dilemma.

For the last one I'd send the tram to kill one person. I find this one to be the biggest of dilemma of the three, as changing the tram's direction gives me some responsibility, but I would say not choosing its direction also constitutes a choice I'm responsible for as well.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?
[/FONT][/COLOR]

I wonder if anyone cares what Bill thinks about this?
 
I wonder if anyone cares what Bill thinks about this?

We live in a real world where "money talks, and bullcrap walks." So this scenario and much worse are our likely current reality. Better to not know what is going on, eh? I'm only stating the reality that those with the money don't even talk to or about Bill or his friends. It'd be cash and carry.
 
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.

Yeah, I would. It's a Sophie's Choice sort of scenario, with no pleasant outcome. But I wasn't the one who placed the guy on the left track in peril any more than Sophie placed her kids in peril when the Nazis rounded her kids up. On the other hand, there is no peril involving Bill other than the one I'd create for him if I decided to murder him for his organs. This is not something I would feel morally justified in doing even if other people were to die because of it.
 
We could emulate The Hunger Games and you are entered in the lottery each time you receive government assistance exceeding $100.00, for each traffic ticket and I'm sure we can come up with lots of creative ways to assign lottery tickets.

Do you think that would have societal impact or would we just get used to it? Could the government raise money taking bets? We could list everyone by ticket volume and you could bet on who will get drawn, sort of a lottery within a lottery.

May the odds be ever in your favor.
 
I don't think I could live with the organs of a person who was forcefully killed so they could be transplanted. There are stories all over the medical world about how things like food preferences, personal interests, and other activities shifted in people who received donor organs to versions that matched the original owner's. That implies that there may be some kind of fragmented consciousness transfer happening. I would not want to have the organs of someone murdered inside of me.
 
It his a discussion topic in your freshman Philosophy of Ethics 301 class?
Everyone once decide for themselves ethical problems. And well, when a person comes to solving these problems ready.
Remember "Lord Jim" by Joseph Conrad? This book is about that, about the willingness or unwillingness of hard choices.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?

If Bill happens to be a depressed man....or he is handicapped....or mentally retarded.....but the rest of his organs are functioning well and healthy....it doesn't require a stretch of the imagination to realize that in the near future, society will deem it okay to sacrifice Bill. Of course they wouldn't word it that way. The spin they'll make would be that they're doing poor Bill a favour.

Their justification? Mercy killing.
 
Picture this.

Bill isn't homeless or alone. He has parents and siblings. However, Bill is physically and mentally retarded. He needs help to be fed, and dressed and bathe. In other words, he is non-viable. Other than that he's got healthy organs.

Here comes an organ broker who's looking for a healthy heart that would save the life of a wealthy man's only child. He offers a big sum of money to buy Bill's heart - and there are also would-be buyers for the rest of his other organs.

Unless his parents are endowed with a deep sense of values that sees the evil in taking another human being's life (even if it means having to persevere in caring for their son), Bill is doomed to the chop-shop.
 
I would shoot the hostage taker.
 
I don't think I could live with the organs of a person who was forcefully killed so they could be transplanted. There are stories all over the medical world about how things like food preferences, personal interests, and other activities shifted in people who received donor organs to versions that matched the original owner's. That implies that there may be some kind of fragmented consciousness transfer happening. I would not want to have the organs of someone murdered inside of me.

But hey, perhaps in that sense you would be giving that person a chance to keep on living - through you.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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?

....we were supposed to be harvesting their organs? Damn.
 
Friend posted this on Facebook

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've heard these kinds of hypothetical's when people are explaining one of the differences between psychopaths, and non-psychos. Supposedly a psychopath has no issue killing one to save many.
 
1. Bill may decline to cooperate. "Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner; Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote."

2. Agree to whatever; once you have the gun, shoot the kidnapper instead.

3. Superman stopping the train before anyone dies is as likely as the scenario itself.


4. The comparisons are flawed, because there is coercion involved in all of them; but no one is forcing us to kill Bill.


 
I can't imagine killing anyone in your scenerio. I would rationalize that the kidnapper was not to be believed. As to killing a person to harvest their organs, that's just plain ridiculous.

The Lifeboat Dilemma is still the best moral dilemma for discussion, in my opinion.

Or on a personal obligation to others, the grenade tossed in the bunker for which you can jump out and save your life, or jump on it saving 9 others.

Actually, philosophy of ethics 301 debates are annoying to me for some reason. :confused:
 
Back
Top Bottom