Immiment Death Question

[sherbtail]

Originally Posted by iggymatrixcounter

Sorry I haven't read most of the thread but one point I did notice:



You're a government agency that has $100,000 to spend for medical purposes. Do you spend it saving the lives of 2 people who need liver transplants or do you spend it on a program that helps alcoholics deal with their problems so they don't destroy their livers in the first place?
(side point:We learned this scenario in economics and the most popular answer was saving the 2 lives.)
.

Hehe as I was reading it I was thinking, 'well this is stupid, obviously you would invest in the alcoholic helping program, and then I read that most people go with saving the two people... meh, maybe my mind works in crazy ways.


I still agree with Kilroy overall. A scenario was set up before where you HAD to drop a nuclear bomb on either a small village or a big city and there was no choice to be neutral. Obviously in that situation I would destroy the small village, although as Kilroy said this is far too far from reality to really be of any use.
However this situation is different, by pulling the lever you are murdering a person, how can you assume that he would want to be sacrificed for the lives of five others, I'm not sure if I would like to be run over by a train to save five other people, and I certainly wouldn't want to make that choice for other people. Thus by doing nothing I believe I would be doing the most moral thing in that situation.

And if I had to explain it to God, I would say, 'why the hell did you put me on a platform with a lever and make me choose between the lives of one and five in a split second decision!??!!'

Chrissi, I'm pretty sure he meant 'all people are equal', 'all men are equal' just flows of the tongue better, your not an ultra-feminist are you, or I'll have to rant at you, and rant hard, Dr. Cox style