On 7 Feb, 21:24, 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.
>
And then there's always people out there like me who have no problem
at all with harvesting hypothetical organs from hypothetical people
even WITHOUT their approval. Hell, if you can't take advantage of
people when they're hypothetical, you're only left with taking
advantage of the real ones and THAT'D be a question for someone's
morals. ;-) Much of the time, hypothetical cases don't have enough
detail to TRULY test an individual's decision making abilities, much
less, their moral prerogatives WITHIN that decision-making process.
For example, in the hostages scenario, it has this kidnapper giving
you a gun in order to kill one hostage to save the others. First, the
kidnapper is an idiot if he gives you a gun and an even WORSE idiot if
he doesn't think HE'S NOT going to be the one I shoot (thus saving
ALL). Go ahead and kill Bill the lonely, unloved hypothetical, but
making him into Soylent Green would probably be a better way to go for
a hypothetical (that is, if REAL people can be kept alive by
harvesting the hypothetical people and turning them into Soylent
Green). The two scenarios (killing a healthy unloved man with no
family and killing a healthy, possibly loved (maybe family) man in
order to save 5 others), though, is unfair as the man in the hostage
scenario already HAS a gun to his head WITHIN the hypothetical
scenario (which is, cleverly, not REALLY brought up). Not that I
think Pavan was trying to lead us (in ANY direction), rather, that
it's really, bloody difficult to pose good hypothetical examples.
> 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 -- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
