Welcome to the group, Pavan. Such questions can be useful to start discussions, but I'm not sure how much they solve. As Neil commented in another thread, setting (context) is important, and in such questions the setting is usually simplified. Sometimes I feel that such questions have the goal of setting up objective rules, which we hope free us from the individual responsibility of making a decision; 'I decided to do so, because that's the (moral) "law",' can be a personal cop-out. The subject cannot be reckoned out of the discussion.
One (simple) answer would be to apply the categorical imperative: “Act only according to that maxim whereby you can at the same time will that it should become a universal law.” —Immanuel Kant, Groundwork of the Metaphysic of Morals If you like such questions, the following link is an interesting discussion of various aspects of "the Prisoner's Dilemma." It's not short, but the method of presentation (a SF story) makes it interesting: http://www.overcomingbias.com/2009/01/three-worlds-collide.htm Francis On 7 Feb., 05:25, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
