moral/ethical dilemma

[ernokaikkonen 0]

>Now the $64,000 question - what's the difference between the two scenarios? Why
>is it OK to intentionally kill a man with a train car to save 5 others, but not
>intentionally kill him with a scalpel to save 5 others? And why do people seem to
>universally _see_ a difference?
It seems to me that in the first scenario, the survival of the one will absolutely positively result in the death of the five. In the second scenario, the one can survive and the five still have a couple of weeks to find a brain-dead donor...
Erno

[Billy 0]

President Bush and Colin Powell are sitting in a bar. A guy walks in and asks the bartender, "Isn't that Bush and Powell sitting over there?" The bartender says, "Yep, it's them."
The guy walks over and says, "Wow, this is a real honor. What are you guys doing in here?" Bush says, "We're planning WW III." The guy asks, "Really? What's going to happen?"
Bush says, "Well, we're going to kill 140 million Iraqis and one blonde with big tits." The guy exclaimed, "A blonde with big tits? Why kill a blonde with big tits?"
Bush turns to Powell, punches him on the shoulder and says,
"See, smart ass?! I told you no one would miss the Iraqis."
OK,, I'd throw the switch and feel ok with it,, shit happens,, no the doc can't donor out his parts,, just illegal an doesn't meet any of the citeria for organ donation,, Darwinism Rules,, The combat scenario,, Semper Fi,, it sucks but ya the boys gotta job too do,, the bus stop,, I drive a truck so I'd put the cutie next ta me,, the ol lady by the door an my bud in the back,, drop the ol lady at the ER after callin 911 on my cell phone, give the hottie my number and then have beers with my bud,, the gal in the bar.. my luck I'd get lucky with her,, she'd have VD,, the rubber would have a hole in it an she'd get pregnant,, I'd get the VD.. my sweetie would find out anyway and in the end I'd be totally screwed.. I miss anything??

[wndrer73 0]

Quote

You now are faced with a moral dillema: Remain faithful to your girlfriend, even though she'll probably never find out...or go in there & shag this babe.

Aaaahhhh.... anyone seen the movie "City Slickers"? "Let's say a spaceship lands..."
Well, if you're Curly and she's a redhead, there'd probably be no doubt what you'd do! On the other hand, if you're the supermarket manager and she's a cashier, that's a BAAAADDDD idea!
"Welcome to the sky!" -- My video/photographer, after my second tandem jump

[Muenkel 0]

OK, I slept thru philosophy class in college and I am sleeping through this thread.[yawn]
If you're not confused, you're not paying attention.
Chris

[hookit 0]

Quote

Why is it an accident when you take an action (throwing a switch) that causes the death of a man, but is murder when you take an action (organ harvesting) that causes the death of a man? Are medical ethics different than 'worker' ethics?

First I have to say piss on you for making me actually think this morning. Fortunately for everyone I consumed sufficient quantities of coffee before reading this thread...otherwise it could have gotten ugly. I believe the underlying difference in the two scenarios is that organ failure is in the natural order of things. Everyone eventually dies of something. However a runaway freight car is certainly not what I would call 'in the natural order of things'. This would truly be an accident regardless of whether 1 or 5 people died. If the 5 people all die of organ failure you wouldn't say they died in a medical accident would you?
Now the obvious counterargument to this is, if we all die of something, why is it considered less acceptable to die by being struck by a runaway freight car than it is to die by organ failure?
I'm not sure about that one....one just seems more 'natural' than the other.

[Jessica 0]

I don't think I could take an action that would positively cause someone's death, in either situation.