One can tell a lot about a man who would even consider sinking a boat of Boddingtons! Must be some sort of Hobgobblin! At least this was once the case, when Boddington's was a fine Manchester brew - now it is only fit to consign to the bottom of the sea. Context is all! One might swill all the beer and honk over the side like a bilge-pump, thus saving both boats. Torture is unlikely to produce truth and has always been used as a totalitarian deterrent, so one might question raising its discussion in a utilitarian context as merely eliding consideration of its real nature. I would undoubtedly fire on a plane load of innocents to save a hugely greater number, and would not disapprove of Jenkins the Boddingtons Slayer in such context. One might do anything at all in a particular context and remain moral - yet questions would remain about exceptions proving rules and just how far down a slippery slope we have sunk. I do not regard these issues as difficult in argument, but am concerned that we are now routinely rationalising the intolerable.
On 8 Feb, 05:11, "Weber? What do you think." <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
