Asimov Posted April 2, 2006 Author Share Posted April 2, 2006 Personally, I think altruism is retarded. What if it was one person vs. a billion? That one person has antibodies to fight a plague, and he could save a billion but his body would have to be sacrificed? Is it still wrong? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lycorth Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 What if it was one person vs. a billion? That one person has antibodies to fight a plague, and he could save a billion but his body would have to be sacrificed? Is it still wrong? I'm willing to bet that, just because of the sheer numerical difference, situational ethics would rule the day and many people would say that the one person with the needed antibodies must give 'em up. Perhaps said person would agree, but I'm willing to posit that most people would change their minds just based on the numbers at risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 2, 2006 Share Posted April 2, 2006 Well, just because of numbers doesn't make it right. But it's still a Kobyashi Maru (no-win scenario). Still, I'm reminded of how Kirk beat it. Thinking outside of the box is definitely required for situations like that. Even if you don't think there's another way, there may be one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 3, 2006 Author Share Posted April 3, 2006 Well, just because of numbers doesn't make it right. But it's still a Kobyashi Maru (no-win scenario). Still, I'm reminded of how Kirk beat it. Thinking outside of the box is definitely required for situations like that. Even if you don't think there's another way, there may be one. Such as getting a blood sample and then replicating the antibodies? I would say that no, the ends do not justify the means and one person still has a right to their life and no obligation to end theirs to save others. It would be tyrannical to force someone to die in order to save a number of people. Just because those people might or might not survive doesn't mean it's a good thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spamandham Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 The idea of the many over the few seems to be our nature. This may be true within a "tribe", but not in general. Our willingness to die for others seems to be coupled to how related we think we are to them. "One Roman is worth 10 nonRomans.". This attitude is pervasive. We have no problem not only not sacrificing ourselves for those outside our tribe (nation in modern times), but would just as soon see all other tribes/nations that seem diferent from us destroyed either by natural causes or by our own hands. "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" "Let's just turn the whole middle east into glass" "Bomb 'me back to the stone age" "kill a commie for mommie" ...you get the picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HuaiDan Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 So a firefighter shouldn't enter a burning building....?That's a bit different. The firefighter has a reasonable expectation of getting out alive. The person in this organ-harvesting scenario has no chance at all. That's not the point...both the firefighter and the person are willingly sacrificing themselves to save others. The firefighter is not sacrificing their life, they are risking their life. They have extensive training and knowledge concerning burning buildings which gives them a very high probability of getting out of that burning building alive. It's not like they are just a person off the street running into a burning building. Medical ethics would never allow a person to sacrifice themselves for seven other people, even if the person who was doing the sacrificing was terminal to begin with. I know we are being hypothetical here, but it's not something that would ever occur in reality. (I didn't see greasemonkey's post until after I posted this.) Taph Not to get into minutia here, but a fire fighter is duty bound to do everything in his power to preserve human life first, and properety second, insofar as he does not make himself a liability in the performance of those duties. A firefighter can either say, "I have the skill and want to save the day!", or "I really don't have the skill to rush into that burning house, someone will probably have to rush in to save me if i did, but i can hold this hose until the other guy gets out safely." It's up to the discretion of the firefighter. The rest of us (except for police officers, doctors, soldiers etc.) are not duty bound with regard to the preservation of human life. Whether or not we piss on someone if they're on fire is our own business, and we only face the scorn of our peers when we don't take reasonable measures to preserve the life of others. "reasonable", here, is the tricky word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 I would say that no, the ends do not justify the means and one person still has a right to their life and no obligation to end theirs to save others. It would be tyrannical to force someone to die in order to save a number of people. Just because those people might or might not survive doesn't mean it's a good thing. For once, I completely agree with you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kryten Posted April 3, 2006 Share Posted April 3, 2006 Well there IS a SOLUTION to the scenario! RECAP: There are 7 patients who need organs, and one healthy person capable of providing all of the needed organs. This implies (and thus we will assume) that the seven would then be well. From the given facts it is understood that each patient requires only ONE organ to become healthy. SOLUTION: Leave the healthy guy alone. Just take the patient with the WORST health, and use his/her SIX healthy organs to save the other six patients. He/she was going to die anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ruth Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 If (and only if) the one healthy person was a volunteer... then I'd say yes, it would be accetable. A soldier dying for his battalion, a mother choosing to carry a child 9 nine months even though she knows it may kill her - if the baby might live, she can choose to give her life for it... altruism, from an objective viewpoint, is not foreign to human nature. In fact, it has usually been considered a noble act throughout history. And, as a Christian, living with the knowledge that death doesn't mean loss to a believer (but rather gain!), I would see the one man's sacrifice (providing that he was prepared to meet his Creator) as a tool for extending the lives of those who would otherwise die (perhaps before they are ready). Just my $0.02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted April 17, 2006 Share Posted April 17, 2006 Why is it axiomatic to think it necessary the seven should live? No one questions this. True. Especially if you think that these 7 maybe are serial killers. Then the sacrifice is not good for us all. And if the one person could be saved by sacrifice the 7, and this one person just recently figured out how to create world peace, wouldn't it be better to sacrifice the 7 to save the one? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Godless Wonder Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 How old are the seven, and how long would they expect to live? How old is the donor, and how long is (s)he expected to live? Reframe the question. The seven band together and kill the unwilling, unwitting donor and steal his organs that they might survive a little longer. Is that ok? What if instead of 7 people, it was 7 million people, and the organ donor were Adolph Hitler? What if instead of 7 people, it was one old man, Adolph Hitler, escaped and living in Argentina, trying to live a one more year, and 7 kidnapped Jewish infant organ donors? Have I sufficiently Godwined the thread? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Yawn. G.W. What does "Godwined the thread" mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 18, 2006 Author Share Posted April 18, 2006 How old are the seven, and how long would they expect to live? How old is the donor, and how long is (s)he expected to live? Who cares? If it's willing then go for it, if it's unwilling then no. Reframe the question. The seven band together and kill the unwilling, unwitting donor and steal his organs that they might survive a little longer. Is that ok? Nope. What if instead of 7 people, it was 7 million people, and the organ donor were Adolph Hitler? Hitler should die (and did) for what he's done to other humans, nothing else. What if instead of 7 people, it was one old man, Adolph Hitler, escaped and living in Argentina, trying to live a one more year, and 7 kidnapped Jewish infant organ donors? I don't even understand the question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Reframe the question. The seven band together and kill the unwilling, unwitting donor and steal his organs that they might survive a little longer. Is that ok? I think I saw this on a debunking Urban Legends show with my kids, but the guy was packed in ice in a hotel room bathroom and lived. Taph Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Amethyst Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 What if instead of 7 people, it was one old man, Adolph Hitler, escaped and living in Argentina, trying to live a one more year, and 7 kidnapped Jewish infant organ donors? I don't even understand the question. They're saying that if it was Hitler, it would make it right for Hitler to die because of what he did. I can understand the argument, but Hitler's dead, so it's moot. Put into more modern terms, what if it was Osama bin Laden trying to live one more year? I say arrest Osama and let him die in prison. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stickmangrit Posted April 18, 2006 Share Posted April 18, 2006 Yawn. G.W. What does "Godwined the thread" mean? Godwins Law states that the longer a discussion on an internet/usenet board continues, the probability of the Nazis or Hitler being mentioned in allegory will increase to one. when this occurs, the discussion should be considered dead, and whoever brought up the Nazis is declared the losing party in the debate. by bringing up Hitler, GW brought in the ability for someone to invoke Godwins law and kill the thread. however, since GW acknowleged the invocation of Godwin's Law, deliberately using it in an attempt to kill the thread, his submission is invalid, and instead of being declared loser, he must merely be given a strong talking to, which i shall now adminsiter. it is suggested that those offended by profanity should ceace reading any further in this post. way to fuck it up shit-tard. can't even manage to make a proper gorram Nazi analogy, can you douche box? asshole. Wikipedia article for Godwin's Law Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
duderonomy Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 Oh. thanks stickmangrit. I never knew there was such a thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted April 19, 2006 Author Share Posted April 19, 2006 What if instead of 7 people, it was one old man, Adolph Hitler, escaped and living in Argentina, trying to live a one more year, and 7 kidnapped Jewish infant organ donors? I don't even understand the question. They're saying that if it was Hitler, it would make it right for Hitler to die because of what he did. I can understand the argument, but Hitler's dead, so it's moot. Put into more modern terms, what if it was Osama bin Laden trying to live one more year? I say arrest Osama and let him die in prison. Osama should die for what he's done to other people, not because he should give up his life for others to live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
theunraveler Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 If u ask that qn to a christian, he will say yes. Ask that to Ayn Rand, she'd tell u to shove it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Antlerman Posted April 19, 2006 Share Posted April 19, 2006 I think the choice to donate your living organs should be a faith-based decision, and not one based on objective rationality. Knowing that this could seven people's lives, you should trust in the Lord and let your organs be harvested from your living body. If you survive, then it was the Lord's will, if you die, it was the Lord's will. "You say you have faith? Show me your faith by your works!" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjacksonRIAB Posted April 20, 2006 Share Posted April 20, 2006 http://www.christianforums.com/t2864621-is-it-right-for-1-to-die-so-that-7-may-live.html Avatar on cf.com posed an interesting question, albeit one with an obvious answer: "Interested in what people of different theologies/philosophies have to say about this. Situation: 7 people are terminally ill and on organ donor waiting lists. 1 person can save all of their lives by having their organs harvested. Kidneys, lungs, heart, liver. Should the one person be sacrificed to save the seven? Why or why not? Does the 'one person's' consent or lack of consent change your answer?" No, whether or not I am that "one person" changes the answer. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts