Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:01:44
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by jay on March 1, 2005, at 19:57:35
> Death being a natural occurance, it is not I who is letting them die. I didn't give them 'organ failure'!
No, you didn't give them organ failure. But you can choose to save them and you choose not to...
If a child is drowning and you are an able swimmer you could stand on the bank and watch - after all you did not throw her into the water...
> It's a simple logical positivist argument. Just because this person has organs to donate, as do millions of others, does not mean they should die for the sake of *each of the other individuals.*In the above case there aren't any other possible donors. (You could imagine this to be happening on an island somewhere and noone from outside can come in if you like). The people mentioned in the scenario are the only people on the island etc.
If you alter the case so there is the possibility of other donors then you can alter what you think we *should* do in the new situation. But that is not an answer to the case the way it was set out.
You can of course say that the way the case is set out can't occur in reality (that it is not possible). Since it is necessarily hypothetical it is senseless to say what we *should* do. This is the line my office mate takes. (Ah - but now he accepts the island case!).. But is it really impossible as a matter of principle? Isn't the island situation possible (though highly improbable to be sure)? If it isn't impossible then we should be able to say what we *should* do in that situation...
>>>You are lumping the six people together as if they are the only people in a world of millions that need an organ transplant. Do ya know what I mean?? Huh? :)
Yeah. I think my above point covers that???
> *Should* is based on a number of variables...from cultural norms and values to individual ones. Sociology and psychology come into play here.
Sure, if you are a moral relativist that is the way things go...
> > >and B) fate is the weight of circumstances.
> > ???> I take it you haven't read much Kierkegaard, eh? :) (It's a quote from a translation of one of his texts.)
But the consideration (case) is from a utilitarian perspective. How the circumstances came about is irrelevant (my office mate says).
No. I haven't read any of his stuff. I am an analytic philosopher and he is of the continental tradition...
> > I guess they are. But in this instance one other. We have to choose between six deaths or one death.
> Sorry, but I still see these as 6 individual seperate, deaths. Each of those individual persons are putting one other person at risk of death for the want of an organ transplantOffice mate says... To see his point above...
:-)
Because: Rights based arguments don't apply to utilitarian cases.
But it is begging the question (in favour of letting the one die) to consider it to be a utilitarian case...
(to go 1+1+1+1+1+1=6 and lump them together)You can say that letting him die is wrong because it is wrong to let people die. But then it is also wrong to let the others die.
You are doing the wrong thing either way.
Same with the first case - wrong thing either way.
Same for the 'real life' case given in one.Guilt and *wrong* action all round :-(
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465199.html