![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 34 to 58 of 60. Go back in thread:
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 16:57:22
In reply to Re: Gabbi!! » Gabbi-x-2, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 16:47:41
... why do people tend to like ethics and philosophy of religion better than philosophy of language and philosophy of mind???
I'll ask y'all about the meaning of meaning one day... But I fear I won't get as many responses
;-)
Sigh.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 16:59:55
In reply to Re: What I want to know is..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 16:57:22
What kinds of things should appear in our ontology
(If we are cataloguing things that exist).Do protons exist?
How about chemicals?
How about dogs?
Chairs?
Voices?
Cities?
Money?
Numbers?
Mind?
God?
Phlogiston?Its okay, you can just ignore me if you like...
Posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 17:20:58
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » medhed, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:49:16
> > Six is better than one. Fix him up.
>
> You mean 'Six is better than one. Let him die'???
>
> You may need to read the case again...
>
>No, 6 dead people are better than one dead, save the guy and give him a morphine OD while he's in recovery. that would be 7 dead violators of this earth. Don't you think we (people) are a freak of nature anyway? They allow us to kill animals when overpopulation is a problem to the environment, and animals are innocent...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:30:21
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 17:20:58
> No, 6 dead people are better than one dead, save the guy and give him a morphine OD while he's in recovery. that would be 7 dead violators of this earth. Don't you think we (people) are a freak of nature anyway? They allow us to kill animals when overpopulation is a problem to the environment, and animals are innocent...
The Land Ethic it is.
Do you really believe this is the morally right thing to do???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:32:02
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 17:20:58
> No, 6 dead people are better than one dead, save the guy and give him a morphine OD while he's in recovery. that would be 7 dead violators of this earth. Don't you think we (people) are a freak of nature anyway? They allow us to kill animals when overpopulation is a problem to the environment, and animals are innocent...
Ps. Given that, are we morally obliged to kill ourself???
Posted by jay on March 1, 2005, at 19:57:35
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » jay, posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 22:04:13
> > You aren't "killing" anybody if you operate on this guy,
>
> No, you aren't killing anybody. You are letting them die.
>
Death being a natural occurance, it is not I who is letting them die. I didn't give them 'organ failure'!> >because A) as Einstein said, God does not play dice,
>
> So because Einstein believed the subatomic world was not indeterminate (despite him fairly much showing that it is) we should not allow this man to die? I am afraid I do not follow the argument...
>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.*>>>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? :)
> >...that's just how it is...etc...
>
> 'How things are' does not imply anything about how things *should* be or what we *should* do.
>No, we are given certain choices...a..b...c..you either do or you don't. *Should* is based on a number of variables...from cultural norms and values to individual ones. Sociology and psychology come into play here.
> >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.)
> >Why not reverse it, and say those six people are putting others at risk for death because of their needs?
>
> 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 transplantJay :)
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 :-(
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).
Posted by TamaraJ on March 1, 2005, at 21:32:33
In reply to Re: And my answer to the cases is..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:13:38
> 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 them
>
> etc etc.
>
> Which probably justify saving the one...
>
> Fair enough???
>
> (Please feel free to disagree).Just to add a third possibility which is that the patient may have AIDs of some other disease which would preclude any organ donation.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:39:51
In reply to Re: And my answer to the cases is... » alexandra_k, posted by TamaraJ on March 1, 2005, at 21:32:33
Yes...
It is unlikely that the surgeon responsible for the man will have knowledge of how many other people could 'benefit' from his demise...
Typically those who give organ transplants are different from those who give emergency surgery (I suppose, I don't really know...)
If that is so then it isn't the case that there is one person with conflicting duties of care.Of course this doesn't solve the issue at the higher level...
SOMEONE would know...
Or the information would be there...
Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:40:28
In reply to Re: And my answer to the cases is..., posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:13:38
Posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 23:38:46
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » medhed, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:30:21
> > No, 6 dead people are better than one dead, save the guy and give him a morphine OD while he's in recovery. that would be 7 dead violators of this earth. Don't you think we (people) are a freak of nature anyway? They allow us to kill animals when overpopulation is a problem to the environment, and animals are innocent...
>
> The Land Ethic it is.
>
> Do you really believe this is the morally right thing to do???
>
>Not legally... I notice people equate morality with legality. I do not kill people because it is illegal and I'm trying to conform through therapy.
My morals could possibly be different than yours, so I'm not sure of 'morally right'.
Posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 23:58:15
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » medhed, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 17:32:02
>
> > No, 6 dead people are better than one dead, save the guy and give him a morphine OD while he's in recovery. that would be 7 dead violators of this earth. Don't you think we (people) are a freak of nature anyway? They allow us to kill animals when overpopulation is a problem to the environment, and animals are innocent...
>
>
> Ps. Given that, are we morally obliged to kill ourself???
>There goes that word again (moral). Being a human being myself, I too am selfish, greedy, wasteful, and a hippocrate, so my self preservation instinct is in effect. I don't think I would kill myself for the greater good although I sometimes wish I was dead for my own selfish reasons.
I don't usually discuss my unpopular veiws so it is hard for me to explain my feelings on this matter. My therapist tells me I'm wrong and that I should change my ideas, but I just think she worries that I'll get in trouble. Supposably, if I conform completely I will find 'HAPPINESS', It's not hard to control my actions but my thoughts are another story...
Martin.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:02:31
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 23:38:46
> Not legally... I notice people equate morality with legality.
Yes, people do tend to conflate the two, but they are distinct notions. It would be nice if the law reflected societies morality (and I think it tries) - well, at times anyway...
>I do not kill people because it is illegal and I'm trying to conform through therapy.
Are there better reasons not to kill people, perhaps??
> My morals could possibly be different than yours, so I'm not sure of 'morally right'.
Different people view morality differently.
Some people say morality is an individual notion (we are obliged to do what we think is best)
Others say it is relative to a society
Others think that there are objective moral facts (just like there are facts about the natural sciences).I just wondered what you thought the morally right thing to do would be...
Are you serious about the 'killing people' idea?
Shall we try to brainstorm some reasons why killing might be wrong (aside from the fact that it is against the law)???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:09:14
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 1, 2005, at 23:58:15
> There goes that word again (moral). Being a human being myself, I too am selfish, greedy, wasteful, and a hippocrate, so my self preservation instinct is in effect. I don't think I would kill myself for the greater good although I sometimes wish I was dead for my own selfish reasons.
My office mate thinks it is perfectly moral (sorry - that word again) to act from self preservation. He thinks that when it comes down to 'them or me' is is perfectly acceptable to choose 'me'. People who sacrifice themselves for the benefit of others are (in his opinion) performing a superogatory act - which is one that EXCEEDS what we are morally required to do.
> I don't usually discuss my unpopular veiws so it is hard for me to explain my feelings on this matter.I feel privaledged that you would share them with me :-)
>My therapist tells me I'm wrong and that I should change my ideas,
That isn't so helpful...
>but I just think she worries that I'll get in trouble.
Yeah. We don't want you in jail or you won't be able to Babble with us :-)
>Supposably, if I conform completely I will find 'HAPPINESS', It's not hard to control my actions but my thoughts are another story...
Hmm. I don't think there is any assurance that you will find happiness. But IMO it would be hard to be happy in jail... I dare say your chances of happiness would be greater if you weren't in jail...
Do you think it would be wrong for someone to kill you, or your child (if you have / had one) or one of your parents, or me???
Posted by medhed on March 2, 2005, at 0:33:18
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » medhed, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:09:14
I have already been in prison for most of my adolesence and young adult life. I killed people in prison and during the gulf war. I was not happy.
I am basically harmless these days I'm glad to say. Most people cannot believe the life I had led, mostly I miss the adrenaline.
I would need a very good reason to kill someone, again the legality. I've felt like killing family members before. You are not in danger, I'm trying to make freinds here! If this was the wild west I'd be a gunslinger. Is that wrong???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:42:12
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 2, 2005, at 0:33:18
> I have already been in prison for most of my adolesence and young adult life. I killed people in prison and during the gulf war. I was not happy.
Crap. You must have had a pretty rough adolescence and young adult life. Maybe even early childhood... Must have been pretty hard to adjust back to life on the outside after that. I am glad you are out. I am glad you are here talking to me :-)
Are you happier now???> I am basically harmless these days I'm glad to say.
:-)
>Most people cannot believe the life I had led, mostly I miss the adrenaline.
> I would need a very good reason to kill someone, again the legality. I've felt like killing family members before. You are not in danger, I'm trying to make freinds here! If this was the wild west I'd be a gunslinger. Is that wrong???Wellllll. Depends who you ask, I suppose.
I guess the legal consequences are a better reason than no reason.
I just believe (and this is my personal opinion) that it isn't right to take anothers life because I wouldn't want anyone to just come along and take mine or yours or anyone else's that I know. Thats not to say that I don't fantasise about the demise of certain people at times, but I wouldn't act on that. Glad to hear you don't have too much trouble not acting on yours anymore :-)
Fantasy is different from reality.
Glad you are with us :-)
Thanks for sharing with me.
Posted by medhed on March 2, 2005, at 1:00:09
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » medhed, posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 0:42:12
Thank YOU. I stay medicated most of the time. I imagine alot of people on babble will not want to interact with me when they start to peice together my life story, and my sense of humor is kind of twisted.
Good Night,
Martin
Posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:11:30
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » Rach, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:48:05
>PS. Going with your argument for the first case it would be acceptable for a surgeon to refrain from operating on the man (let him die) as it is okay to 'let die' just not to actively kill...
I wasn't saying that it's ok to 'let die', but that in the unchangeable scenario presented, to me it's preferable for 6 people to die unattributed to my actions, than for 1 person to be murdered by me.
So I'm guaranteed to save the man, and 6 others are guaranteed to die? If I didn't save the man, would the 6 be guaranteed to live with their new organs? (I assume so). Still, save the man. They're his organs!
What if I presented a situation where there are 8 people waiting for organs who will die without them, and live with them. A man walks into your office who is a match for all of them, but he is perfectly healthy. Would you suffocate that man to pass on his organs and save 8 other people?
Posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:18:14
In reply to Re: Are we happy with my answers then??? (nm), posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:40:28
I get your point. And logically, of course it makes sense.
But for me the utilitarian perspective as way too black and white. :)
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 1:47:27
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » alexandra_k, posted by medhed on March 2, 2005, at 1:00:09
> Thank YOU.
You are most welcome :-)
>I stay medicated most of the time.
Does it help with the urges?
>I imagine alot of people on babble will not want to interact with me when they start to peice together my life story,
Well I will not be one of them. I dare say everyone has done things they may regret in hindsight. And I know that I have done things I don't regret that I probably 'should' as well. The past is the past. You are here with us today, and for that I am grateful :-)
> and my sense of humor is kind of twisted.
Mine too ;-)
> Good Night
Goodnight to you as well.
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:06:04
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six???, posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:11:30
> I wasn't saying that it's ok to 'let die', but that in the unchangeable scenario presented, to me it's preferable for 6 people to die unattributed to my actions, than for 1 person to be murdered by me.
But we could describe it thus:
It is preferable for 6 people to die as a result of my inaction than for one person to die as a result of my action.
Is 'inaction' preferable to 'action'?
I talked about this a bit with respect to the 'active' 'passive' distinction in the euthenasia case...
> So I'm guaranteed to save the man, and 6 others are guaranteed to die? If I didn't save the man, would the 6 be guaranteed to live with their new organs? (I assume so). Still, save the man. They're his organs!Yes. It is supposed to be guaranteed that they will live if given the organs. They are his organs (while he is alive). But the point is whether you should interveane to keep him alive or let him die in order to save the others. You will wait till he dies to harvest the organs..
> What if I presented a situation where there are 8 people waiting for organs who will die without them, and live with them. A man walks into your office who is a match for all of them, but he is perfectly healthy. Would you suffocate that man to pass on his organs and save 8 other people?Good case :-)
It might be thought that in order to be consistent I would have to say 'yes'. So I shall have to do some fast talking...
1) If there are other possible sources of organ donors then no - it is not morally justified. But then it is easy enough for you to strengthen the case so that that is not an option - put them on the island or something ;-)
2) If other people hear I have done this I dare say that I will no longer get any patients. It could also inspire mass fear of going to see a doctor. The consequences of that would be pretty bad... So let us strengthen the case so that nobody will find out as a matter of principle...
3) Okay, yes, that is ok (given the strongest version of the case). I would prefer to administer a lethal injection over strangulation, but sure kill him to save 6.But this case wouldn't happen in the real world. So in a way it may be senseless to say that there is a certain course of action that *should* be done.
But here is a related case:
You and 6 others survive a plane crash. You are all starving... Nobody has come... Is it okay to kill one to feed the rest??? (Assuming you ALL will die without). We may also have to suppose that all of you fully believe that a person will most likely die of shock if you go lopping bits off.
What do ya think???
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 2:09:13
In reply to Re: Are we happy with my answers then???, posted by Rach on March 2, 2005, at 1:18:14
> But for me the utilitarian perspective as way too black and white. :)
Really???
Most people say that deontological / rights based / intrinsic value theories are much more rigid. The idea that certain maxims hold - no exceptions (such as 'it is wrong to kill' etc).
It is typically thought that utilitarian / consequentialist based ethics is much more flexable because it allows for CONTEXT more (though we can try to build that in to the moral laws) and mostly because they consider the consequences.
Could you say more about why you think it is inflexible? I would be interested in understanding that a bit more...
Posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 2, 2005, at 3:03:47
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six??? » jay, posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 21:01:44
> 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...
I don't see the comparison, in theory you wouldn't be sacrificing a life to save the drowning child.I can't make the assumption that saving 6 is better than one, especially in the case of organ donation. I too see it as 6 individual deaths, and as Jay said, just because one person has organs to donate doesn't obligate one to donate them. It has nothing to do with my ascribing to a certain philosophical theory, if I do, it's coincidental. I don't really have the innate bias that saving human lives is automatically a good thing either, so that makes things more complicated.....
Posted by alexandra_k on March 2, 2005, at 3:28:56
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six???, posted by Gabbi-x-2 on March 2, 2005, at 3:03:47
> > 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...
> I don't see the comparison, in theory you wouldn't be sacrificing a life to save the drowning child.
It was just supposed to illustrate that sometimes INACTION can be immoral. To encourage one to think about whether the INACTION in the train case was really blameless..
> I can't make the assumption that saving 6 is better than one, especially in the case of organ donation.It is based on the notion that all people have an EQUAL right to life. That each individual gets ONE 'vote' if you like... Thats what democracy is based on. Some people think ethics should be the same. That we are obliged to do that which brings about the greatest good for the greatest number of people. Of course that is just the ideal. Some people buy the ideal, others do not. Even if you buy the ideal there is lots of arguing to be had over figuring out just what the 'greatest good' is...
>I too see it as 6 individual deaths,
Ok. I guess I see it as the death of 6 individuals.
>and as Jay said, just because one person has organs to donate doesn't obligate one to donate them.
No. That would require additional premises. The person in the case is down to donate after death, though. He chose to do this. We could argue about whether all of us are morally obliged to consent to the donation of our organs after death, but that is a seperate issue.
>It has nothing to do with my ascribing to a certain philosophical theory, if I do, it's coincidental.
Sure. I don't think that anyone ascribes to philosophical theories as taught. People invariably come up with their own ideosyncratic view (in an attempt to get around the problems) - but typically different 'kinds' of theories stumble over different 'kinds' of problems / hard cases.
>I don't really have the innate bias that saving human lives is automatically a good thing either, so that makes things more complicated.....
Indeed! You could believe that we should do whatever brings about the greatest good for the greatest number (ie be a utilitarian / consequentialist) and also hold that the greatest good is death! The absense of pain forever and ever amen. Going to heaven. Whatever. That would work...
If you buy into a certain theory as to how we determine what we should do (Kantian moral law vs consequentialism for example) then they tend to deliver results with respect to saying what we *should* and *should not* do. But then consequentialism delivers a different result depending on how you define the 'greatest good' for example. (Typically it is happiness - though that needs elaborating).
But to say are we morally obliged to be a Kantian or a Utilitarian is a metaethical question. One that I find much more interesting than just accepting one of the theories and arguing about what they deliver on certain cases. *Should* one be a Kantian or a Utilitarian?
A lot of people like to think ethics is relative. Right and wrong is relative to a society / culture or whatever. Surely there is some truth to that. But surely this is not the case all the time. The only universal moral accepted by all cultures (so far as we know) is 'torturing small children for fun is wrong'.
But surely discrimination on the basis of race is wrong - regardless of whether a culture condones it or not. When the culture condones it then they are just wrong.
So complete moral relativism may well be as counter-intuitive as the notion that there are objective moral facts (comperable to scientific facts) - it is just that we have yet to hit upon them.
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Social | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.