Have a Heart, Pat! Literally! lol
On Feb 9, 9:07 am, Pat <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
