On 7 Feb, 08:09, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> *1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?*
>
> Only if it's a Hammond B3
>
> lol
>
Reminds me of Bugs Bunny's "I'm looking over a three leaf clover that
I overlooked be-three." ;-)
> On Feb 7, 2:05 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
> > See, there's a Golden Retriever on the left track, Bush and Cheney on
> > the right track.....
>
> > On Feb 7, 1:50 am, Chris Jenkins <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > See, there's a boat full of Bodington's, and a boat full of Hobgoblin...
>
> > > On Sat, Feb 7, 2009 at 2:46 AM, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > > > A small boat contains 10 volunteers from the Peace Corp and the Red
> > > > Cross and another large boat contains1200 hardened criminals guilty of
> > > > the most heinous of crimes. Both boats are slowly sinking and you
> > > > only have one wine cork to plug the hole.
> > > > Which boat do you save Pav?
> > > > So you see it's not just about numbers!
>
> > > > On Feb 7, 1:39 am, Slip Disc <[email protected]> wrote:
> > > > > People are stuck with whatever organs they have. It would be
> > > > > ridiculous to think it acceptable to kill someone for their healthy
> > > > > organs.
>
> > > > > Surely you should send the
> > > > > tram left, killing one to save five. <<Pav
>
> > > > > Surely I would run over 5 slime bags to save the one good person on
> > > > > the left.
>
> > > > > There is more to all these little case scenarios that you present.
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 10:25 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- 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
