012; on morals

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

77,23,87,65,23,9,21,89,13,68,23,6,143,5,38,247,45,478,
456,2,3,53,67,8,9,4,645,9,532,,5,64,24,45,6,1,1,65 654,

system
merovingian
goto command level
merovingian
0023/ #xy / 987$
security
westwing off
lighting off
security
sl off
security
hndst_bis.obj
not found
not found


LISTINGS HDNST_BIS.OBJ
OBJECT NOT FOUND IN LIBRARIES

Vg1 = GetHandl {dat.dt} tempCall {itm.temp}
Vg2 = GetHandl {dat.itl} tempCall {itm.temp}
if Link(Vg1,Vg2) set Lim(Vg1,Vg2)return
if Link(Vg1,Vg2) set Lim(Vg1,Vg2)return
on hndst_bis.obj link set call link.sst {security, perimeter} set to off
limitDat.1 = maxBits (%25) to {limit .065} set on

FIND HNDST_BIS.OBJ
OBJECT NOT FOUND IN LIBRARIES
OBJECT NOT FOUND IN LIBRARIES
OBJECT NOT FOUND IN LIBRARIES
security
/endsession

[/private]

[quiet, almost rustling sigh, then dictated]

Suppose, for the sake of philosophical discussion, that you are a surgeon with five patients in critical condition. 
One will perish if she does not receive a new lung.
One will wither without a new kidney. 
Another desperately needs a new heart.
Another without a functioning liver, 
The last without a new stomach. 

But you also have, in your clinic right now, a perfectly healthy young man who has come in to fix the photocopier. This man, unbeknownst to him, is a perfect donor for his patients. So you kill him, and use his organs to save the lives of the five. 
You have saved five lives, at the cost of one.
Is it morally unacceptable to exchange one fragile, unassuming life for five others?

Comments

[sinister-charm.livejournal.com]

[dictated, unhinged, tight reign on his insanity]

It doesn't matter. It doesn't matter at all. Morals don't mean a thing.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

['For the sake of philosophical discussion' is underlined multiple times]

[sinister-charm.livejournal.com]

Fine. I'll be elaborate; even though I can barely hear myself think.


Human lives, I assume you mean, are incredibly fragile. Their lives are measured in scant decades and they are riddled with disease. Such things are frequent.

Now, your photocopy boy is, like they, a potential life. He could perhaps become a historically significant figure, or he could, in two months, overdose on cocaine. Similarly, the lives saved could be just in the same thing. Regarding the people who are dying, you've given no details on who they are. Frequently, status is what determines worthiness of actions.

If they were all dregs of society, most individuals would consider their lives to be less than that of your photocopy boy - as they are insignificant, they do not contribute to society, and they are generalized as 'worthless' by the majority of the social classes.

Were they the upperclass, the elite, some could easily say that the life of the photocopy boy is not nearly as equal to that of theirs, and that obviously, to better the world, harvesting his organs would be the best course of action; though not ethically or legally approved upon.

Myself, I would simply slaughter the man and use him to save their lives - after all, one life for five, even if those lives may be worthless. Call it leftover twinges of my former self making the choice there. Ethically, I'm doing something that does not justify - or equal - the damage I am causing, as I am simply looking for the quickest solution instead of staying the course and waiting for donor organs to come in.

Though an alternative is presented in that perhaps, if one of those patients dies, their blood types and organ types manage to perfectly match all those needed. I have not killed a stranger, I have merely taken a patient that has died and used them for better purposes.

On that vein, it's incredibly improbable that the photocopy boy matches all the patients well enought to do a proper match - despite the fact there is a good chance they have the same blood types, certain antibodies within organs would make matching harder; in the real world, not the hypothetical one, he might simply do for only one or two patients instead of all five.

Is that more to your liking, or shall I go on?

[loluronfire.livejournal.com]

Depends on if the people you saved were important or not.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Important in regards of what?
Social standing, monetary wealth, superior genetics, communitative abilities, innocence...?

[loluronfire.livejournal.com]

[superior genetics gets underlined]

[fragmentedangel.livejournal.com]

What about importance to me?

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Good question, petit ange. It is factors like those that cause morals to become shifting grey areas, rather than the black and white view so many wish them to be.

In that case, what if the donor was an important man?

[fragmentedangel.livejournal.com]

Important like Father?

[pause] Do you mind if I ask more than three questions?

[imaginihs-02.livejournal.com]

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one?

Coming from a guy who was almost the repair man (not that anybody wanted my internal organs, but the argument fits), I'd say it's not fair unless the guy is willing.

Then again, it's not like your torturing him... Aw, hell, I don't know.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Precisely. It is not a simple question to answer.
But here, let us shed a different light on it.

Imagine those same six people, in a similar situation.

Suppose that you are the driver of this runaway railway engine. You have little control of the engine; you cannot stop it, or even slow it down, and it is going recklessly down the tracks.
But you do have a little bit of control. If you come to a junction, for example, you can cause the engine to take the right fork, or the left fork. Now, suppose you see a junction coming up fast, and suppose that, on the right fork, there are five workmen on the line.

On the left fork, there is only one workman on the line. You cannot warn them of your approach, and it is highly unlikely that they will see or hear you coming, for the sake of the discussion they are incredibly intrigued by their work, and unaware of their surroundings.

If we were to apply your reasoning, would that not mean you should take the left fork? Saving five lives, at the cost of one?

[imaginihs-02.livejournal.com]

Left fork. Seems like a really different situation, though. Even though when I think about it, it isn't, you just have to make the choice in a different way.

[a few pen taps]

Yeah, that's hard.

[takecareofhim.livejournal.com]

It depends on what works and what doesn't, doesn't it?

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Do elaborate?

[quantumdot.livejournal.com]

Je... Je ne suis pas sûr. C'est une question difficile.

À un respect, on pourrait penser à lui comme les "besoins des nombreux" étant supérieurs aux "besoins de celui." Cependant, le massacre quelqu'un peut-il toujours vraiment être justifié ?

Ainsi, d'une certaine manière, il est droite, et d'une certaine manière, il est erroné. La plupart du temps droite, mais encore erroné.

C'est une autre question à laquelle je ne pense pas qu'il y a une réponse.

Par exemple, que si l'homme que vous avez tué sauverait les 20.000 vies plus tard ?

......Désolé, je me promène.

[ooc: 8D;; It's Bastille Day, okay?]

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Precisely. It is not a simple question to ask, and with so many factors, it comes down to morals and how an individual percieved the situation.

[ontheclockpro.livejournal.com]

In a lot of the surgeon's cases?

Depends on which one option would get him paid more and avoid a lawsuit.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

In your case, then, it is not a matter of morals, of right and wrong, of black and white, but monetary gain.

[transcribed chuckle]

[dragonakira.livejournal.com]

Organ donation? That's...

Why would you...

Some weird modern thing?


Morally? Depends on the people involved.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]

Yes, organ donation.
Humans are rather fragile, and have formulated a way to extend their short lifespans by a few years when diseases attack certain organs or tissues.
By locating a donor of the same blood-type, generally dead for moral reasons, that person's organs are distributed to those who need fresh, healthy organs to replace their faulty ones.

Disgusting and wretched, is it not?

omg forgive my triple post.

[notsomuchakitty.livejournal.com]

One human life is meaningless.....however a number as small as five human lives? Well it has little more worth than that of one human. They could all die and it would have very little effect to the race in general.

Sensibly one could come to a compromise. The human liver is one of the few organs that regenerates so the liver patient and the donor could both live. A human can also live with one lung, thus the lung patient and the donor could both live. The other two would need a vegetable donor and thus in order for the donor to live the other two would have to die but if you were to let them die in the end you're saving two more lives than you regularly would...three if you count the donor.

It would be almost silly to save all five in any case. Humans have that pesky tendency to breed like rabbits and with the overpopulation thing and all it'd almost be better to just let them keel in the grand scheme of things.

[tohru-h.livejournal.com]

Eh?

But...

That wouldn't be right to sacrifice even one person for such a thing. Sometimes we lose people and it's hard, but the ones receiving that gift, knowing what was lost ...that would make them very sad, I think.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated]
A
t the same time, would it not make them happy, to have their own life returned to them?

[fantasticninth.livejournal.com]

Yes. Always.

[hindsight-bias.livejournal.com]

[Dictated almost playfully]

Careful, your moral bias is showing.