The problem that we have found in similar quandaries, Pavan, is that they are merely exercises in idea, removed from the realities of living the situation. In this particular revision of the question, however, we have the benefit of history. Every war ever fought sacrificed individuals for the sake of one cause or another. How "moral" that decision was is another question entirely.
On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 5:31 PM, Pavan Kolachoor <[email protected]>wrote: > Lets say a group of people (political parties, the best of kingdoms, > leaders history has ever known..) instead of one person taking a moral > decision to sacrifice one guy and save many.. would they not decide to kill > bill then ? have we not come across this situation ? > > I am very new to these discussions.. so my knowledge is very limited.. > > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 1:24 PM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > >> >> 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 - >> >> > > > -- > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
