|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
posted January 09, 2013 04:56 AM |
|
|
Fauch:
Maybe you have enough time, but you don't have enough materials. Or maybe they're all on deck and killing them would take two minutes. The point is, you can't fix both boats.
Vindicator:
Why did you pick what you picked?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 05:04 AM |
|
|
Part 1: A, sit there and do nothing
Part 2: C, kill everyone on the 200-person ship and then let the 300 other people drown
Part 3: C, kill everyone
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 05:53 AM |
|
|
And to answer the questions -
1: Save 300 people
2: It'd depend on what kind of weapon I have. For instance, an uzi wouldn't take so much effort - I'd probably kill the 200. But a machete? That'd be a hell of a lot of work. Path of least resistance, baby. 
3. Save the people I know.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 09:53 AM |
|
|
All these problems are based on the trick to actually force you into a conscious DECISION, and with the decision the illusion of responsibility.
You are not forced to decide, though. You might flip a coin or simply start positive measures just where you are (thereby not wasting any time, doing what you can, accepting the location fate has put you into when fate struck).
Even IF you make a decision in favor of someone (say, those you know), I find it rather debatable whether that's a decision against someone else at the same time. Your actions mostly have consequences - if you take a job, you also rob someone else of it, do you? In the time you save someone from death, you cannot save another one.
You might also say, that your actions only matter for those who survive because of you - those who die would have died anyway (if you haven't been there at all).
|
|
OhforfSake
Promising
Legendary Hero
Initiate
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 11:52 AM |
|
|
Why not just restate the questions as:
1) If you were to choose between saving a lower amount of people or a higher amount people, could you make this choice (even when not choosing means no one is saved)? If you could, which one of the two would you choose?
2) If you decided on either one, but then the non-chosen amount of people had to be killed by you, would you reconsider?
3) If each person of the non-chosen amount of people mattered more to you, would that make you change your decision?
Anyway, like every other time we go over this problem, I honestly don't think I could choose, and I do not think it's my decision to make either.
For the case specific example, accepting the ridiculous terms of both getting into the situation, and for the situation to have the consequences proposed, then I'll work on the boat I happen to be on at the time of the leak, because that's what I'm apparently there for, not to choose between who gets to live and...
Still, unless it's specifically my job, only my job, and it's common knowledge, it's really hard to see how I could even get around to fix anything in the first place. Further more the leaky boat would either be gone more or less right away, or no one would know I could even leave the ship.
Edit: Still the example could be better. It's really far out there to think both ships couldn't easily be saved even when accepting the terms of the example, considering how easily one can communicate between both ships.
Maybe if you let every person on both ships be in a type of coma they can not be woken up from, because they're really space ships, and the leaks are happening in outer space, plus there's a teleporting device linking the two ships, or something..
And for question 2, the teleporting device is linked to the same power source which governs the life source of the coma induced passengers, so you'd have to actively certainly destroy one, if you chose to save the other.
I also think question 2 is more relevant if there's a flicker of doubt if there's help to be had. Meaning it's not a choice between saving one by killing another, but a situation where you might save one by killing another, OR maybe help is just about to be there, and you just killed one, actively, while both could have been saved had you not even been there.
I suppose most of the absurdity comes from the certainty of the situation. In every situation we meet, we'll never know if our involvements merely will make for a worse outcome, but in most every day situations, we have experience and the ability to process this experience to get a good idea whether what we do is for the better.
In the classic trolley example, we've no idea of any past events of which could give an idea of what our actions will lead to, only an absurd certainty which eliminates a large part of the actual philosophical dilemma. Imagine in the classic example, pulling the lever kills one, but the five would have been saved anyway, because someone unknown to us (like we're unknown to them), had found a way to save those 5, without endangering the one person in the other cart.
____________
Living time backwards
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 05:39 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I'll work on the boat I happen to be on at the time of the leak, because that's what I'm apparently there for, not to choose between who gets to live and...
Would you also do that if you were an emergency room surgeon? Suppose 10 people are going to die within the next 2 hours if you don't perform surgery on them, but you can't perform surgery on all of them - you don't have the time. They have different injuries that take different amounts of time to treat - some only require a 20-minute surgery, and some would require the whole 2 hours. Would you pick the people you treat randomly, or would you try to save as many people as possible by performing the faster surgeries?
Also, how is communication between the ships relevant? They can radio each other, but they can't transport people from ship to ship, as there are no lifeboats.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 05:44 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Would you also do that if you were an emergency room surgeon? Suppose 10 people are going to die within the next 2 hours if you don't perform surgery on them, but you can't perform surgery on all of them - you don't have the time.
Hospitals have procedures to prioritize the order in which patients are seen, and this prioritization often occurs before patients arrive at the hospital. If there aren't enough doctors to handle incoming traumas, patients are diverted to other hospitals. These decisions aren't left in the hands of individual surgeons - too much liability.
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 09, 2013 09:31 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 21:33, 09 Jan 2013.
|
D: Ask 10K dollars from each person in the ship, or at least force them to sign a paper that gives me the money...hehehe.
Part 2: Even better. Ask the money from the 200 people ship, let them die, go to the second ship and repeat..., let the ship sink ,escape the area.
Part 3: Meh. "Oh no,family...." same as Part 2.
Play this music Aint no rest for the wicked
Relax..
The whole moral dilemma here is too forced.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 03:56 PM |
|
|
I'm not sure what number we're on, so I'm calling this Dilemma #15:
You are a physician and one of your patients has a terminal disease. You know that with proper care this patient could live several more years, but her quality of life will be very low. The patient is in constant pain, cannot move around well, etc. You visit this patient daily in the hospital to give her IV medication and one time, when the patient is in obvious horrible discomfort, she asks if you will please just end her pain and suffering. The rest of her family is there, and though they are saddened by this, they agree that she has suffered enough. You know that simply doubling the medication will make her passing easy, and it is very unlikely anyone will find out.
Do you euthanize the patient, as she and her family have requested?
|
|
master_learn
Legendary Hero
walking to the library
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:04 PM |
|
|
If according to the law I can do that,then I just will follow the rules how to do it.
If its against the law,then I wont know what to do.
Reasons:
1.I can't imagine what does it feel to have such profession.
2.I suppose I would act differently according to how much time I have practised this and if I had previous patients with such case.
3.I probably wouldn't trust the patient's family,who may sue me after they change their mind!
____________
"I heard the latest HD version disables playing Heroes. Please reconsider."-Salamandre
|
|
OmegaDestroyer
Hero of Order
Fox or Chicken?
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:22 PM |
|
|
No. Despite the good intentions, it would still be considered homicide and the potential to get sued is too great. If the patient is intent on terminating her life early, then she can find some other means to do so.
____________
The giant has awakened
You drink my blood and drown
Wrath and raving I will not stop
You'll never take me down
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:28 PM |
|
|
|
may I ask someone else to do it?
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:35 PM |
|
Edited by Seraphim at 16:42, 30 Jan 2013.
|
Quote:
Do you euthanize the patient, as she and her family have requested?
Yes.
Nobody should be forced to live if they dont want to.
Quote:
Quote:
No. Despite the good intentions, it would still be considered homicide and the potential to get sued is too great. If the patient is intent on terminating her life early, then she can find some other means to do so.
I am sorry, but what you jsut said dumbfounded me.
You really expect someone in a deathbed to seek another way of comitting suicide?
Really? Do you expect somebody to take the drugs themselves or committing suicide by moving the bed out of the window?
Euthanasia should be allowed for people who dont want to live. It would definitely make their deaths less tragic and traumatic.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:40 PM |
|
|
Too many ****ing witnesses lol, as far as I know assisted suicide is illegal in the US, most definitely illegal here, so no. However, since this is a moral dilemma, I'd *****-slap the woman and tell her that if she wants to die she will have to do it herself, she's already weak and pathetic by opting for the easy option, and taking the trigger from her is just adding insult to injury.
On a side note: In England we had a case where a man killed over 300 of his patients on purpose by overdosing them on painkillers/medication, and he was only caught after he stole some money from family members. (not sure how the two connect though) Just thought I'd throw that in.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 04:53 PM |
|
|
I understand the legal quandary, of course, but there are ways around that. I mean, suppose we change it up a bit and you are no longer a doctor and the patient is your parent:
Your mother has a terminal disease. You know that with proper care she could live several more years, but her quality of life will be very low. She is in constant pain, cannot move around well, etc. One day, when she is in obvious horrible discomfort, she asks if you will please just end her pain and suffering. You know that simply doubling the number of pills she takes will make her passing easy, and it is very unlikely anyone will find out.
Do you euthanize her, as she has requested?
|
|
Seraphim
Supreme Hero
Knowledge Reaper
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 05:09 PM |
|
|
Quote:
I understand the legal quandary, of course, but there are ways around that. I mean, suppose we change it up a bit and you are no longer a doctor and the patient is your parent:
Your mother has a terminal disease. You know that with proper care she could live several more years, but her quality of life will be very low. She is in constant pain, cannot move around well, etc. One day, when she is in obvious horrible discomfort, she asks if you will please just end her pain and suffering. You know that simply doubling the number of pills she takes will make her passing easy, and it is very unlikely anyone will find out.
Do you euthanize her, as she has requested?
Even though I dont think a mother is going to ask her child to euthanize her, I would still do so.
So yes.
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 05:23 PM |
|
|
Of course, I think the law should be changed. Consider, as an example, this case. You can see a picture of what she suffered here. The woman, by the way, eventually committed suicide, though it was never proven how or if anyone helped her.
One thing I have learned from responses so far is that people in this kind of scenario would tend to act based on what is legal vs what they think might be morally right. I guess that in itself is an interesting point of discussion.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted January 30, 2013 09:46 PM |
|
|
I don't see the MORAL dilemma here. There may be a legal one, but where is the moral one? Whether you'd help a terminally ill person with a death wish who was so dependant on others that he or she couldn't even end his/her life on his/her own free will, to end his/her life?
You'd do it for your dog, you'd do it for your cat. You shoot a horse when it breaks a leg.
So where is the dilemma? That god will send you to hell?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted January 31, 2013 12:50 AM |
|
|
Well, anywhere there's a legal dilemma there's usually a moral or ethical one as well. Else the law would be changed. 
____________
I'm sick of following my dreams. I'm just going to ask them where they're goin', and hook up with them later. -Mitch Hedberg
|
|
smithey
Promising
Supreme Hero
Yes im red, choke on it !!!
|
|
posted January 31, 2013 01:16 AM |
|
|
|
There are so many laws that throw the ethics out the window for the sake of profit, who decides whether the law passes ? The rich senators and those dont always care about ethics as much as they care about "self preservation"
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
