[Anon] [Text]

[crouching_sin]

Here's a question for you all. It's something that I read a while back, and I'm interested in your answers. Anonymous is fine, if you want.

There are five patients in a hospital. All of them are dying due to complications with various organs. All of them will die within the next day or so if they don't get an organ transplant. Magic won't save any of them, incidentally, if you were hoping to use that.

A young backpacker comes into the hospital or a checkup. He has no relatives, and he is in excellent health. As it happens, you, the surgeon on duty, notice that he is a perfect match for all five of the patients.

Assuming the backpacker does not give consent, is it morally permissible to cut him up and transfer the organs to the other patients? These are not organs that the backpacker can live without, so he'll die if you do.

I'm interested to hear what you think.

Comments

[crouching_sin]

Most people are squeamish.

[conquersworlds]

Or they just have different priorities.

I don't think it really matters whether one is better or not, personally.

[crouching_sin]

To be honest, I don't really think it does, either. It's just something people tend to tell themselves to make themselves feel better about it.

[anon text]

[evilfrenzy]

I would have no pity for those who went through with it and ended up actually surprised by the outcome. They already put too much thought into it by even considering it as an option in the first place, and yet lacked foresight about what could happen after they completed their actions.

But I do agree, this has been interesting. I've seen several thought experiments on the network in my time here, but none so outright morbid as this one. I bet you've struck a nerve with some network members.

[Apparently the one about drowning someone wasn't morbid enough. We need to be stealing organs for it to get morbid.]

[conquersworlds]

There's not much point in doing that, though - if people need to die then so be it.

[anonymous text]

[explosivecombat]

Honestly, I don't see where this is at all the surgeon's business in the first place; the fact that he's considering breaching whatever oath he took when he gained the right to practice medicine implies that he's greatly overinvested in the situation and shouldn't be permitted to make that choice to begin with.

[crouching_sin]

Most people don't seem to like thinking of it that way.

[anon text]

[crouching_sin]

Apparently I have. I've gotten several people asking me what I'm even thinking. I'm thinking of philosophy, obviously.

[anonymous text]

[crouching_sin]

That's fair. Though it's more of a question over whether killing or letting someone die is more abhorrent.

[conquersworlds]

Most people don't have experience with it.

I still think there's too much wrong with the original question for it to pretend to be worthy of discussion, even as a thought experiment - but I'm curious about what sort of answers you've gotten.

[explosivecombat]

Oh, I'm fully aware of what it is. It's still a flawed problem by way of legal and social trappings, however.

Do you have an answer for your own question, or are you just polling the rest of us through idle boredom?

[crouching_sin]

Most people seem to be giving an immediate reaction of 'no'. Other people have said 'no', but because of more intelligent reasons like 'because you'd lose your license'. No one yet has said 'yes' - which is fair, since this is a rather extreme example of utilitarianism.

[crouching_sin]

I have an answer, yes. The answer is 'no', though because of the loss of license and the future loss of opportunities to save patients.

If that weren't an issue, then yes... possibly. It depends on who the people are.

Though yes, boredom is a large part of this.

[explosivecombat]

You would have done better with the original version of the trolley problem, you know.

[crouching_sin]

This one is more fun, though. People give more interesting reactions. I like playing devil's advocate.

[explosivecombat]

Really? I have yet to see you actually do so.

Let's hear your argument, then, if you're so fond.

anonymous text;

[doitrockapella]

And you think that perfect objectivity will get you further ahead in life?

[crouching_sin]

Provided that no one would know, and that the people are people that you would actually want to keep alive and not, say, someone you hate - then I don't find a real ethical problem within my own internal ethics. If the goal is to maximize potential happiness and minimize suffering, then wouldn't keeping more people alive be the more ideal outcome? Sometimes the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, even if neither side really knows what's best for them.

anonymous text;

[crouching_sin]

It's gotten me further than most, though I admit that I don't know what other worlds are like.

[explosivecombat]

Of course you don't have a problem with your own internal ethics in that regard; what you just described by your own admission is personal investment in people you have reason to be invested in, whatever that reason may be. Ask anyone if they would hypothetically do anything for the people they care about and you'll marvel at how quickly their sense of morality flies right out the window.

You can't pretend, in the circumstances you've provided, that keeping more people alive or satisfying the needs of the many has anything to do with it, and as such your claim to arguing devil's advocate is still neither valid nor accurate.

It was a nice try, though.

[logged in text forever]

[ajustcaws]

oh wow that is AWESOME!!!! i'm gonna have to tell my dad about that if he ever shows up here again, he'll think it's just the coolest thing ever!!!

...but wait a sec

if you can take organs from someone and put them in somebody else, why are we hypothetically killing this guy???? it's a hospital, right?? aren't there dead people around who you can take organs from instead??

i mean they're not actually using them and he is

[in_praetego]

[ What kind of question is that even. ]

There's nothing morally permissible about that. Any doctor worth any respect knows the one of the tenants we're taught is to do no harm. The circumstances may be unfortunate but without the donor's consent, there's really nothing we can do.

[Text]

[stitchedupbodyguard]

[Someone I know might have said yes at one point.

But my answer is no.

[It's that simple to her.]

[scratchitti]

Well that assumes that a life is measured by what they do in their life. I just don't agree with that. EVERYONE is a world of potential and possibility you can't ever predict.

You either have to agree that every life is precious or no life is- either way it's ruins the choice as anything other then self serving. There's no purely logical way to do it.

[crouching_sin]

You asked about my argument, and I was under the impression that you wanted to hear my opinion. If I didn't care about any of them, then of course the risks outweigh the benefits. It's an example of utilitarianism at its most basic form, which has problems as we've discussed. It's an introductory example.