• 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?

One of those ethics topics got started one time in a church, no less, where I was there as always out of respect for my wife. I attend. Stand when they do, sit when they do, but keep quiet.

The question came up for some reason I can't remember, of if you were president would you use military force to rescue your own wife or child if kidnapped more than you would for other Americans. People had different comments. TOTALLY atypical, my wife looked to me and asked me what I think about the topic - something she never asks me - but this wasn't a religious topic.

My answer was immediate, short and in a cold certainty: "I would destroy entire galaxies for my wife and any of our children." I saw no reason to comment further.

There was a silent pause before they all continued.

(My wife seemed pleased at my answer.)
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

Where the organ harvesting is concerned, my answer would be a rather resounding "no." The idea that any society should deliberately end the lives of perfectly healthy individuals to save sick persons who could likely be cared for in some other fashion is simply ridiculous. There is no guarantee that the exchange would even be worth it from a cost-benefit-analysis point of view.

Where the other examples are concerned, however; (as much as I hate to go against the grain here) I can say with some amount of certainty that I'd kill the one hostage to save five, and divert the train to kill one man instead of five any day of the week in a heart beat. It's simple numbers. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Under such circumstances as you described, this would not be an act of malice on your own part. It would be an act of damage reduction meant to curb the loss of life in a situation already beyond your control. This makes all the difference in the world from a moral perspective.

Contrary to what some other posters have suggested, I would not say that inactivity renders one morally blameless either. Failure to make a decision is still, ultimately, a decision. If a gratuitous number of deaths occur because a person failed to make a difficult decision, the blame for that still lies very much on them.

The simple fact of the matter is that they had the ability to minimize the human cost of the tragedy in question, but chose not to use this power to their full ability. In many ways that is more despicable than deliberately sacrificing someone for the greater good. It is intellectual and moral cowardice.
 
Last edited:
sbrettt said:
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.
Click to expand...

Not quite. A clinical psychopath, to my understanding, would have no problem harvesting the organs. Most normal people, however; can rationalize killing one to save many in a hostage or survival situation.

The difference, IIRC, lies in how a psychopath's brain processes information. They lack empathy, and so they tend to view other human beings in the same way a normal person might view inanimate objects. "Morality" never even comes into play. Simple pragmatic self-interest rules all decision making in their minds.
 
Last edited:
Gathomas88 said:
Not quite. A clinical psychopath, to my understanding, would have no problem harvesting the organs. Most normal people, however; can rationalize killing one to save many in a hostage or survival situation.

The difference, IIRC, lies in how a psychopath's brain processes information. They lack empathy, and so they tend to view other human beings in the same way a normal person might view inanimate objects. "Morality" never even comes into play. Simple pragmatic self-interest rules all decision making in their minds.
Click to expand...

This is a more detailed explanation of how people differentiate the two.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

No. As they are his property, Bill has a right to his organs. He doesn't even have to be an organ donor if he were to die of natural causes or accident. He can bequeath them to others in need if he wants to, or 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.)
Click to expand...

Then the kidnapper will shoot all six and I'll have no guilt on my conscience having not killed anyone and having not played the game of a madman.


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.
Click to expand...

Then the five will die. If I divert the train, I have deliberately killed the man on the left.

I did not cause the tram to be runaway, I did not tie the five to the track. The man responsible for tying them to the track is guilty of the five murders. I will not be his accomplice.

Doing nothing is the appropriate course of action.
 
Last edited:
sbrettt said:
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.
Click to expand...

I don't think a psychopath is concerned about saving anyone except himself. On the other hand, if he can make a buck...

Coma (1978) - IMDb
 
So I've thought about this for a few days. I think to an extent I say yes, except I'd change it to "allow people to die" for their organs, if they desire it. There are many people like me and in much worse psychological shape that would gladly leave this mortal world if we were given a dignified and relatively painless way to go. This would allow many to choose to pass while their organs were still in great shape and yet their lives or at least their own perceptions of their own lives are beyond reasonable repair and be able to feel like they were doing something valuable to society on their way out, instead of being demonized and such.
 
If we take someone's money to give to others then why not body parts?
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

not Bill, somebody else maybe, but not Bill.....
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

In the latter two situations, everyone at risk is already prepping to die.

In the first situation, Bill is at no such risk. He must be forcibly put at that risk. He has a right to his life and integrity. That's why it's wrong to kill Bill.

It's the difference between human sacrifice and ranking donor candidates higher or lower by probability of survival.
 
I could kill maybe for their grand piano ...
... but never for their organs.
 
Summerwind said:
So I've thought about this for a few days. I think to an extent I say yes, except I'd change it to "allow people to die" for their organs, if they desire it. There are many people like me and in much worse psychological shape that would gladly leave this mortal world if we were given a dignified and relatively painless way to go. This would allow many to choose to pass while their organs were still in great shape and yet their lives or at least their own perceptions of their own lives are beyond reasonable repair and be able to feel like they were doing something valuable to society on their way out, instead of being demonized and such.
Click to expand...

I can see all sorts of issues with this, starting with the idea that people who contemplate suicide are often not of sound mind. They might be mentally impaired due to drug or alcohol abuse, depressed, or suffering from some sort of chemical/hormonal imbalance. These thoughts can and often are fleeting, so my first thought is whether I'd want to be the recipient of an organ from such a person. Personally, I think there'd be enough doubt in my mind that I would not accept an organ under such a circumstance, if what you're referring to is some sort of planned donation which is arranged ahead of time with society's imprimatur.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...


Take the gun, shoot the kidnapper. Problem solved.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

The basis behind this conundrum is supposed to be, that in the case of the train, you are but a distant observer who can flip a simple switch and the result is a net 4 lived saves, where as in the case of the hostages you must actively cause the death of another person by your own hand. Now, of course, you actively caused death in both instances, but with the train it's much easier to disconnect the act of flipping a switch, something you do all the time, from the act of pulling the trigger of a gun and watching a person suffer and die by your hand. Many people are mentally incapable of forming a rational for such an action and wouldn't act.

One only has to take the train argument to the extreme to see the problem more clearly....There is an inbound ICBM (nuke) and you find yourself capable of diverting it if you only press a button. If you don't New York will be blown up (several million people), or you can divert it to an isolated area in northern Maine where only a few hundred people will be killed.

Here I hope the solution is a bit more clear....If there is anyone that would be such a coward that they would let millions of people die because they didn't want to act (even though doing nothing is in fact an action with consequences) I really don't want to know about it as I have nothing to say to you.

Anyway....I hope that the vast majority of you see the dilemma for what it is. The question is only, how many people have to be at risk before you will act? I mean, if the nuke were headed to Boston and you could divert to another city with just a few hundred less people, Perhaps not... I would think the moral calculus would have to provide a pretty clear answer.....

Now up the anti...What if the 5 men on the track were in their 90's and the 1 on the other track was just a baby? Or what if the one was on the cusp of curing cancer?

There is no easy answer to these questions and you can't simply apply some one-size-fits-all moral standard. In cases were more information were known there may be justification.....

Personally I think that at any given point in time there is an objective moral standard that applies given the circumstances and information known (but that's not to say that we are always aware of what that standard is). But the circumstances can change and moral action can become immoral and the other way around.

For instance, I think we can agree that it would be immoral for me to cut off another persons hand. But if they were bit by a venomous snake and the person bit and I agreed that cutting off his hand was the only way to save him, and I cut off his hand, would that be immoral?

What if later on I take him to a hospital where they look at my freind and then say to me in disbelief, "why did you cut his hand off? you didn't have to do that!!!"...Would that suddenly make my action immoral??

See how a question with a seemingly simple answer can get very complicated?
 
Last edited:
tosca1 said:
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.
Click to expand...
But who would want a retarded heart? It wouldn't be able to beat right and it would be constantly confused. Now a homeless man's heart. That's the money heart.
 
Last edited:
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

I think waiting for them to die to collect organs is much more morally acceptable. You could hire a hitman to make his death conveniently soon, but still not morally sound.

On the second scenario, I would have to know whether you had access to communication with the hostages. If so, counsel with them to decide. Also, a man putting a gun in your hands in this kind of scenario would be incredibly stupid. Unless it is a SAW style scenario where the kidnapper is impossible to harm, just kill him and everyone is free. I would have no problem with the kidnapper being killed, he intended to kill innocents in the first place. He has forfeited his right to life.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

No, because it's not bill's choice. If bill wanted to give up his life to save others, then I would support that.

Kreton said:
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.)
Click to expand...

This one's easy. Say "okay", then when the kidnapper gives you the gun to shoot the hostage, shoot him instead. Stupid kidnapper.
 
Kreton said:
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?
Click to expand...

Scenario 1:

It's murder, both legally and morally. Don't do it.

Scenario 2:

It's murder, both legally and morally. Do this instead:

1. Agree to do it.
2. Take the gun.
3. Kill the kidnapper

I'm not sure about three.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom