Does Bill have a voice in the decision, Pavan ? In your other instances, the likely victims do have that.
On Feb 7, 9:25 am, Pavan Kolachoor <[email protected]> wrote: > This is a famous philosophical question posted by > BBC.http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/7739493.stm > > I never got an opportunity to discuss this with anybody, your thoughts > please. > > *1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?* > > 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? > > -- > Regards, > > Pavan --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups ""Minds Eye"" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/Minds-Eye?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
