Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 20:00:59
In reply to Why they are different » alexandra_k, posted by snoozin on February 28, 2005, at 18:22:57
You might want to say that GIVEN the choice between one and six we should choose one over six.
But given the way the world works although this sort of case might be possible in principle is really isn't very plausible as a matter of fact.
My officemate is the real ethicist. I just get a bit interested every now and then... He doesn't think there really are any moral dilemmas. He thinks the problem comes of philosophers making up very abstract cases because they can't find any in the real world...
Thats why the surgeon case sounds fairly contrived...
You could try that. You could say that the surgeon should save the one because other organ donors can always 'just turn up'. You could say that the surgeon should save the one because if other people hear of this then nobody will want to be an organ donor anymore!
Does this seem ok to you or do you think it may be just bypassing a deeper issue???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464615.html