Kill Bill? A Philosophical Question
Discussion
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?
P.S. It's World Philosophy Day today.
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?
P.S. It's World Philosophy Day today.
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?
No the others are not providing anything to society and are in fact a drain... sod em.
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.)
Do you know the others? If not sod em.
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.
Is bill going to die? If not doesn't really make a difference, if noboy is ill etc etc then probably killing one person is better. Really poor questions
No the others are not providing anything to society and are in fact a drain... sod em.
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.)
Do you know the others? If not sod em.
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.
Is bill going to die? If not doesn't really make a difference, if noboy is ill etc etc then probably killing one person is better. Really poor questions
Edited by Nuclearsquash on Friday 21st November 13:00
I read this on the BBC and thought it was absolute b
ks. No you shouldn't kill a healthy person to save sick people, the other situations are different as they're situations of peril, and not health.
So in conclusion, use the five point exploding heart technique.
ks. No you shouldn't kill a healthy person to save sick people, the other situations are different as they're situations of peril, and not health.So in conclusion, use the five point exploding heart technique.
Edited by Neil_H on Friday 21st November 13:02
Caruso said:
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 that happened I'd simply shoot the kidnapper as soon as they handed me the gun.To add yet another scenario, irrelevant how or why, you have the chance to save the king/queen/president/leader of the nation, but to do so you must sacrifice the lives of 10 others, what will it be?
Where do you draw the line, how many are you prepared to kill to save a important person?
Where do you draw the line, how many are you prepared to kill to save a important person?
Finlandia said:
To add yet another scenario, irrelevant how or why, you have the chance to save the king/queen/president/leader of the nation, but to do so you must sacrifice the lives of 10 others, what will it be?
Where do you draw the line, how many are you prepared to kill to save a important person?
None.Where do you draw the line, how many are you prepared to kill to save a important person?
In the first situation you would have time to weigh up the merits of the individual cases. e.g. if you were going to kill a convicted paedo to save the life of 5 people hurt in the line of duty, then it's a very different prospect to killing an innocent person to save the lives of 5 others who haven't looked after themselves.
In the 2nd situation I would perhaps kill the oldest hostage? It would depend how much you trust the kidnapper to be telling the truth.
In the 3rd situation, you wouldn't have time to react weigh up the merits, and I would go for the least deaths option.
In the 2nd situation I would perhaps kill the oldest hostage? It would depend how much you trust the kidnapper to be telling the truth.
In the 3rd situation, you wouldn't have time to react weigh up the merits, and I would go for the least deaths option.
Neil_H said:
Finlandia said:
how many are you prepared to kill to save a important person?
Define "important". I'm one of the most important people I know.
Caruso said:
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.
Depends who the people are. On the track ahead is Blair, Brown, and a few serial killers, on the fork is the lovely kylie minogue. What whould you do? I know what I would do.
Finlandia said:
Important as I thought in this case would be a World leader, King/Queen, Preident, not a simple doctor 
Not that the situation ever would arise, but you have the power to decide who gets shot, the Queen or 10 randomly selected persons.
I would quite happily let any of those people die in lieu of 10 random MOP. Not that the situation ever would arise, but you have the power to decide who gets shot, the Queen or 10 randomly selected persons.
Cotty said:
Caruso said:
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.
Depends who the people are. On the track ahead is Blair, Brown, and a few serial killers, on the fork is the lovely kylie minogue. What whould you do? I know what I would do.
Gassing Station | The Pie & Piston Archive | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff