The Important Conclusion (now added)

jayjay23 wrote:

largehat wrote:That's Bill's decision.

Nobody else's.

Ok. Let's alter the question a little bit.

There are six people in hospital beds.
Bill healthy (physically) but is in a coma. There is a 95% chance he will come out of the coma alive in 1 week and have a healthy life. In the other 5 beds are 5 people who will die today if they don't get an organ transplant. Bill happens to be a perfect match for all 5. There is a 100% chance that all 5 transplants will be a success and that all 5 will lead healthy lives there after.
You do not have to do anything other than make the decision. You have been voted as the sole judge in such matters and the doctor has asked you what your decision will be, "Do you want us to save the 5 or the one, judge?"
You have to make a choice. What is it? All six lives are in your hands.

I stick by the original answer. You cannot murder someone because they happen to be a good organ match.

You're welcome, Grand-Dad!

jayjay23 wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:haha no not quite.

it was one of these scenarios to discuss.

something like you can save either

"the man with the cure for cancer, a woman who is 9 months pregnant, the prime minister, or your elderly grandfather"

I like questions like that - but I do not think they are right for job interviews. Especially if the interviewers are going to judge your application on your responses. What would you do? I think I would like to say cancer.

I did say Cancer, they were all apparently stuck down a hole.

first thing i said was "how on earth did all these people get down a hole" as a bit of a joke and the guy was non-plused. Probably why i didn't get it.

Hipster_Nebula wrote:

jayjay23 wrote:

Hipster_Nebula wrote:haha no not quite.

it was one of these scenarios to discuss.

something like you can save either

"the man with the cure for cancer, a woman who is 9 months pregnant, the prime minister, or your elderly grandfather"

I like questions like that - but I do not think they are right for job interviews. Especially if the interviewers are going to judge your application on your responses. What would you do? I think I would like to say cancer.

I did say Cancer, they were all apparently stuck down a hole.

first thing i said was "how on earth did all these people get down a hole" as a bit of a joke and the guy was non-plused. Probably why i didn't get it.

...sometimes you can't win at an interview. If you make a joke you are flippant. If you turn a weakness into a strength you are lying. If you don't make a joke you have no personality. Etc.

largehat wrote:

jayjay23 wrote:

largehat wrote:That's Bill's decision.

Nobody else's.

Ok. Let's alter the question a little bit.

There are six people in hospital beds.
Bill healthy (physically) but is in a coma. There is a 95% chance he will come out of the coma alive in 1 week and have a healthy life. In the other 5 beds are 5 people who will die today if they don't get an organ transplant. Bill happens to be a perfect match for all 5. There is a 100% chance that all 5 transplants will be a success and that all 5 will lead healthy lives there after.
You do not have to do anything other than make the decision. You have been voted as the sole judge in such matters and the doctor has asked you what your decision will be, "Do you want us to save the 5 or the one, judge?"
You have to make a choice. What is it? All six lives are in your hands.

I stick by the original answer. You cannot murder someone because they happen to be a good organ match.

Yes but why?
I am not saying you are wrong. I want to know why we think that way.
Why in this case is it more morally acceptable to allow five to die? Surely only because of ingrained societal values which means we find it difficult to be logical over death and similar things.

jayjay23 wrote:
Yes but why?
I am not saying you are wrong. I want to know why we think that way.
Why in this case is it more morally acceptable to allow five to die? Surely only because of ingrained societal values which means we find it difficult to be logical over death and similar things.

It's a case of free will with a little bit of playing god thrown in for good measure.

I consider it is immoral to deny Bill his right to life. It is unfortunate that there is a separate situation where there are five people who would benefit from Bill's organs were he to die, but he isn't dead unless we take the decision to kill him. That is murder.

It's not our place to decide that Bill's right to life is outweighed by the desire to keep five other people alive when they would otherwise have died. It is nearly always sad when someone dies (exceptions being people like Hitler and Bin Laden and such), and we should always try to keep people alive through medical care, but not at the direct expense of the lives of the healthy and living.

The overriding factor is that killing Bill would be murder.

A train going down a track on course to kill 5 people tied to the line.
The option to divert the train onto another line with just Bill on it.

Bill will survive if you do nothing. And the five will die.
Yet most people would choose to divert the train and MURDER Bill. Essentially trading his life for the other five who are in a life threatening situation.

jayjay23 wrote:A train going down a track on course to kill 5 people tied to the line.
The option to divert the train onto another line with just Bill on it.

Bill will survive if you do nothing. And the five will die.
Yet most people would choose to divert the train and MURDER Bill. Essentially trading his life for the other five who are in a life threatening situation.

That's not murder though is it? If that situation happened in real life, there isn't a court in the land that would convict you of murder. In that situation you have no real choice but to sacrifice Bill. This is why I mentioned free will in my previous post.

Just because a decision to change the status quo - ie divert the train towards Bill - was taken - does not mean you have murdered Bill.

It would be like being able to push 5 children out of the way of an out of control bus but not having enough arms to push Bill out of the way too. No culpability in law.

The first part of the question is quite simple, although I wouldn't want to, I would shoot the one in the worst position, i.e eldest, sickest, etc.
The second part is completely different for me. I would let Bill live. Two things cross my mind, and that is that it is wrong to take a life just becasue the numbers fit, and secondly, this sort of thing isn't too far from reality. People sell their organs, and I believe that in some poor or really lawless countries, its not too far fetched to see a black market for more.