Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:13:38
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by jay on March 1, 2005, at 19:57:35
PS. If you see it as a rights based case then you are left with genuine moral dilemmas. Wrong action is unavoidable.
If we accept utilitarianism then there isn't a moral dilemma, there is a course of action that is morally acceptable.
PS. In my view an answer to the first case is that the correct thing to do is to divert the train because GIVEN THE SITUATION you are doing the best possible action (saving 1+1+1+1+1=5 lives).
In the 'real life' case I think it is morally acceptable to shoot the son, (saving 1+1+1+1+1=5 lives). If it was the choice between saving ones own son versus the deaths of 6 strangers then either the above course of action would be acceptable or one could justify saving ones son because we have greater moral obligations to children who are dependant on us. Either way could be acceptable (depending on ones REASONS for making the choice). - But that latter one was a different case from the one that was laid out.
In the second case (the way it was laid out) then I think the morally correct thing to do is to let the one die to save the (1+1+1+1+1=5).
BUT: Fortunately the case (as it was laid out) probably does not occur very often in the real world!!!
In the real would such considerations would come into play as:
1) There is always the possibility of other donors
2) People will not volounteer to donate after death if they think doctors are less likely to save themetc etc.
Which probably justify saving the one...
Fair enough???
(Please feel free to disagree).
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/465203.html