Very good MB, institutionalized killing. Soylent green anyone?
I concur and reiterate my earlier point; there is more to all these little case scenarios that you (pavan) present. My only dilemma basically lies in the questionable aspect of "who are we saving" and will the people we save become the instruments of our own demise. As you say, diverse hypotheticals bring about moral variations, societal and subjective. On Feb 7, 2:30 am, Michael Berkovits <[email protected]> wrote: > Different moral schemas are activated in different hypotheticals. > Extreme measures are appropriate in what feel like "extreme" > circumstances (kidnappers on an island; killer trolley), but not in > normal circumstances. The killing Bill hypothetical occurs in a > situation that is applicable every moment of every day. We can always > kill someone for his organs and save other people. But if that were > our everyday morality, there'd be a lot of institutionalized killing > of innocents. I think the point here is that "everyday" morality > differs from "extreme situation" morality. > > On Feb 7, 3:24 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Sorry, I missed the word " not." > > > The line must read : In your other instances, the likely victims do > > not have that. > > > On Feb 7, 11:21 am, Vamadevananda <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > 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- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
