I guess if its alright for Uma it's alright for me!
On Feb 7, 10:13 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
