For the first question consider that old adage: Life Liberty, and property (to be applied distributively) (every man has a right to it) So, it is your right yes, if you so decide to do so, to kill yourself and donate those organs to others. Yet it is not the right of the government to do so. I think we sometimes replace the distributively part with quantitative.
The difference is whether the law should be applied to spare as much as possible, or should be applied equally to every one. Well according to Locke, it should be applied to everyone. As far as the kidnapped case, there is one person you could shoot in order to save every one, yourself, other then that it is not your decision. For the last part, you should run over the people tied to the track. This is one of those situations in which you have no option. the first one implies governments actions, or societies actions. Society ecists to preserve human life as much as possible (once again distributively). Let me pose a question: A terrorist is in the custody of the CIA. He knows the location of a bomb in New York city. It is going to explode in two hours. Do you torcher him to get the information? (he is a hardened fighter, and fully devoted to his cause, he will not tell you on his own in the next 30 minutes) www.top3productdesign.com On Feb 6, 8:25 pm, 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
