Philosophy
A couple of weeks or so ago, in celebration of something weird like World Philosopher Day or something, a BBC journalist wrote down a series of philosophical dilemnas. I think there were 5 in total, but only one has remained behind to bug me constantly.
5 people are dying and in need of organ donations. Bob is a healthy person, with no friends or family whatsoever. Why don't we kill Bob and give his organs to the dying people?
To make you think about it, take this situation as well: you and 6 other people are taken hostage. The killer tells you that if you kill one of the other people, he'll let all the others go, else he will just kill everyone.
And if you're still having trouble: You're on a runaway train. There are two tracks up ahead. One has five people tied to it, the other has 1. Which do you take?
(Note, these are not my ideas - they're the ideas of the Beeb's philosopher dude, but I can't remember his name!)
This has been bugging me soo much! On the face it, all three are very similar: kill 1 to save 5. I think number 1 is wrong, but it's so hard to form a logical argument against it when the other two seem right to me. (although number two is very similar to the dilemna in the Dark Knight where they didn't kill anyone at all, so...)
And when I think about my reason, it makes it sound even worse. Organ donations are needed due to an illness, most usually. An act of nature. The other two are acts of men - it's not something that would naturally arise, it has been forced upon us. In the past there was no such thing as organ donors: people just died. Shouldn't we just be grateful for what we have? It's not like the fiver terminal patients will die completely immediately. Technology has made such amazing discoveries and inventions now a days. I was reading the other day about a girl who survived for a month (or maybe it was 3) without a heart, waiting for a donor.
That's what I mean. It's a long, cruel wait for organs, but they come eventually. In a runaway train, people are going to die no matter what you do, so you try and limit the casualties. But death doesn't necessarily come for those who're waiting for organs.
I'm still stuck on the hostage one. I'm not sure I could ever actually kill someone, even if it did save lives. I'd still have killed someone else to save my own life - taking someone's mother/father/child/sibling/partner etc away from them. How do you choose who to shoot? If he gave me a gun, maybe I'd shoot our hostage taker! That seems like a far more sensible choice. Would you kill yourself, maybe? Maybe someone would volunteer. Maybe someone else would do it, but I really don't think I could. Unlike our unrealistic Bob, all these people would have people who cared about them, would cry and grieve and hate me when they're gone.
No one should be aimed to be killed to save another. The world should never work like that. That involves planning this persons murder - and that's basically what it would be. And so you killed one person to save 5. Worked out pretty well. Why not kill another then? And another? But what if you can't find someone who meets the specific requirements who is totally alone - what if you find someone, but they have a family, friends, a life... You're still saving 5 though - that's a 4 life balance. Good enough! Then you think, well a balance of 3 - even 2 - isn't so bad either. Then maybe you get far enough down the line where it's one for one: one unimportant cashier or driver for one very important person: a president, a top government scientist, even a famous actress? There will always be people in need of organs. If we start seeing people as just incubators for organs then no life is sacred, and we spiral down into a well of righteous murder and discrimination.
Hmm... well, the philosopher exercise seems to have worked: I've gone all philosophical about it!
5 people are dying and in need of organ donations. Bob is a healthy person, with no friends or family whatsoever. Why don't we kill Bob and give his organs to the dying people?
To make you think about it, take this situation as well: you and 6 other people are taken hostage. The killer tells you that if you kill one of the other people, he'll let all the others go, else he will just kill everyone.
And if you're still having trouble: You're on a runaway train. There are two tracks up ahead. One has five people tied to it, the other has 1. Which do you take?
(Note, these are not my ideas - they're the ideas of the Beeb's philosopher dude, but I can't remember his name!)
This has been bugging me soo much! On the face it, all three are very similar: kill 1 to save 5. I think number 1 is wrong, but it's so hard to form a logical argument against it when the other two seem right to me. (although number two is very similar to the dilemna in the Dark Knight where they didn't kill anyone at all, so...)
And when I think about my reason, it makes it sound even worse. Organ donations are needed due to an illness, most usually. An act of nature. The other two are acts of men - it's not something that would naturally arise, it has been forced upon us. In the past there was no such thing as organ donors: people just died. Shouldn't we just be grateful for what we have? It's not like the fiver terminal patients will die completely immediately. Technology has made such amazing discoveries and inventions now a days. I was reading the other day about a girl who survived for a month (or maybe it was 3) without a heart, waiting for a donor.
That's what I mean. It's a long, cruel wait for organs, but they come eventually. In a runaway train, people are going to die no matter what you do, so you try and limit the casualties. But death doesn't necessarily come for those who're waiting for organs.
I'm still stuck on the hostage one. I'm not sure I could ever actually kill someone, even if it did save lives. I'd still have killed someone else to save my own life - taking someone's mother/father/child/sibling/partner etc away from them. How do you choose who to shoot? If he gave me a gun, maybe I'd shoot our hostage taker! That seems like a far more sensible choice. Would you kill yourself, maybe? Maybe someone would volunteer. Maybe someone else would do it, but I really don't think I could. Unlike our unrealistic Bob, all these people would have people who cared about them, would cry and grieve and hate me when they're gone.
No one should be aimed to be killed to save another. The world should never work like that. That involves planning this persons murder - and that's basically what it would be. And so you killed one person to save 5. Worked out pretty well. Why not kill another then? And another? But what if you can't find someone who meets the specific requirements who is totally alone - what if you find someone, but they have a family, friends, a life... You're still saving 5 though - that's a 4 life balance. Good enough! Then you think, well a balance of 3 - even 2 - isn't so bad either. Then maybe you get far enough down the line where it's one for one: one unimportant cashier or driver for one very important person: a president, a top government scientist, even a famous actress? There will always be people in need of organs. If we start seeing people as just incubators for organs then no life is sacred, and we spiral down into a well of righteous murder and discrimination.
Hmm... well, the philosopher exercise seems to have worked: I've gone all philosophical about it!