I think that grasshopper...errr....Bill should definately be killed! http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-czwy-aVbbU
On Feb 7, 6:32 pm, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote: > The crux of any of the numerous outcomes resolves itself to your > opening statement, that being "Let's Say". All hypothesis can be > based upon "let's say" and as Chris points out there is not a scant > bit of reality in living out the situation but only the "let's Say", > which could be any number of variants. > Who is Bill and who are "they" that would decide to kill Bill? What > are the motivations? What are the ethical standards of the group in > question? > > On Feb 7, 4:31 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- 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
