Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

thereds

Diamond Member
Apr 4, 2000
7,888
0
0
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?
 
Oct 25, 2006
11,036
11
91
Morality thread, woo.

1. If he consents and he knows everything that will happen to him, why not?

To the others, the reason why its harder to answer is because people don't want to be put on the hotspot. We can't really tell what we'll do unless we ARE in that situation, with adrenaline racing. All of these questions have been done before.
 

ed21x

Diamond Member
Oct 12, 2001
5,410
6
81
Killing is wrong, and there are laws against that. However, saving someone is more of a matter of grace and has less obligation. So in either case, do whatever you can to not kill someone.
 

PieIsAwesome

Diamond Member
Feb 11, 2007
4,054
1
0
Killing someone and preventing someone from dying or allowing someone to die are two different things.
 

RichardE

Banned
Dec 31, 2005
10,246
2
0
In all 3 examples, the ultimate decision needs to be made due to circumstances happening beyond the control of all individuals.

In Bills case, the ultimate decision is not being made due to immediate circumstances beyond everyones control, the people needing transplants can wait for ones available ect ect, Bill could get a disease ect ect, not be a fit ect ect. There is no "immediate death" where you have a few seconds to make a decision.

Thats why the cases are different.


/waits for what ifs
 

CRXican

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2004
9,062
1
0
Leave Bill alone. I believe in survival of the fittest. Your organs can't hang, bye bye.
 

GagHalfrunt

Lifer
Apr 19, 2001
25,297
2,000
126
I think it should be okay to kill and harvest the organs of people who start moronic threads. If 20 people agree a thread is stupid the OP is strapped down and stripped of parts like a 3-series BMW with the keys left in it in South Central.

1
 

CKent

Diamond Member
Aug 17, 2005
9,020
0
0
Article which inspired the OP
Only things it made me think were "Wow, this is incredibly stupid", "This is about what I'd expect those stupid fucks called psychiatrists to come up with" and "Echo... echo... echo...".
 

mugs

Lifer
Apr 29, 2003
48,924
45
91
Why would we want 5 weak people instead of one guy who has nothing wrong with him?

Here's a philosophical question for you - if we use crop dusters to spread powdered peanuts everywhere, aren't we just helping nature take its course?
 

pyonir

Lifer
Dec 18, 2001
40,856
311
126
I volunteer to give up my organs. I'm useless in the world anyway. As long as you pay my way to wherever i need to be and make my death painless.
 

BigJ

Lifer
Nov 18, 2001
21,335
1
81
Got a final coming up for Intro to Philosophy? This is actually exactly what we covered way back when I took the course for elective credit. World Philosophy Day though, eh?

Philipa Foot and Thomson have answers. Might as well throw Kant in there too.

 

darkxshade

Lifer
Mar 31, 2001
13,749
6
81
Originally posted by: thereds
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?


There are differences between the scenarios. In the case of the kidnapped, all 6 would be dead so it makes sense to kill the one to save the other 5 because the one you kill would be dead either way. In Bills case, it's a bigger moral dilemma because Bill actually has a chance to live whereas the selected kidnapped guy has no chance whatsoever. Another difference is a bigger dilemma on choosing who I would kill whereas in Bills situation, the one singled out(Bill) is chosen for me.

The tram scenario is a lot more complex but there's still an underlying difference. The difference being choices. Basically in the tram scenario, it's my choice and either way I have to make one and end up killing someone, I cannot pass that choice to anyone. In Bills case, I can pass that choice to him to save the other 5 and my hands are clean. Now you may say what if I can't pass the choice to him, that I have to make it. Then I could counter you with, what if I could speak to that one man on the track, and ask him to decide if I should kill him or the other 5 because that is the only way to make the 2 scenarios equal and fair.
 

Tiamat

Lifer
Nov 25, 2003
14,074
5
71
No. If "Bill" wants to give up his life to save others, that is his call, but he shouldn't be pressured to do so.

Another angle, what if "Bill" makes 1.5M$ annually, donates to charities, etc. and the other 5 make less than 20k$ combined and are drug addicts with plenty of jail record, would it be worth it to "kill" him for his organs to save those people?

BTW, in the hostage situation, I wouldn't kill an unwilling person to save five.
 

nonameo

Diamond Member
Mar 13, 2006
5,949
3
76
Why not kill one of the terminally ill people? That is one less person that has to be on autoimmune medicine the rest of his/her life.

edit: this assumes the five people all have different failing organs.


edit: also note that the terminally ill person would die anyway. You don't even have to let 'em know he/she's been "selected".