We've already discussed when it's OK to commit suicide, and I think most people agreed that suicide is morally OK when your suicide saves the lives of those around you, i.e. jumping on a grenade. People reasoned it out with different philosophies, but I think most everyone can agree that jumping on a grenade to save the lives of your friends is a brave and noble deed.
Here's a twist on that question: when is it OK to take the life of another human being? How does it relate to when it's OK to commit suicide?
To fuel thought, here's a couple scenarios that I came up with on the top of my head.
1. (Probably cliched but...) Imagine you were given a time-machine that allowed you to travel back in time to when Hitler was a young child. Would it be permissible to kill an (as yet) innocent child to save millions of Holocaust victims?
2. You're a doctor in a war zone, and your facilities are being overwhelmed by wounded and dying. You have limited resources and limited time, so is it permissible to pick and choose who to save vs. who to let die?
3. (If you've seen the Dark Knight) Pretend you were one of the people on the civilian ship, with the detonator to the prisoners' ship. You're told that if neither of you blows each other up, then the Joker will blow both ships up, so is it justified to kill the prisoners rather than have both ships blow up?
4. You're a doctor, and you've identified 10 people with terminally ill patients, who will die unless they get a particular organ transplant. One person, who happens to be perfectly healthy, happens to have all the organs and is a perfect match for all 10 people. Is it OK to somehow kill the one person and use his/her organs to save these 10 lives?
Do you feel like these scenarios need more information? For instance, would the livelihoods of each of these people matter? Is #4 different if the one person were a surgeon or a businessman or a drug dealer? What if the 10 people being saved are young children? Or senior citizens? Does it change the answer?
Posted in
Question
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I know we talked about this subject, but I thought it'd be nice to share what was discussed.
In case number 1, I would have to say, it would not be right to kill Hitler. First of all, it's not ethical to time travel. Second of all, it's even less ethical to screw up history. HA. I'm just kidding. But in all honesty, based on the principle of justice, it would be unethical to kill a child who has not yet committed a crime. Now, push aside this universal justice, and then in a way you could justify the murder of Hitler. However, in doing so, you would be ignoring the same kind of justice all great moral teachers such as Jesus, Ghandi, and MLK jr. all readily practiced: a universal principle of justice which assumes the rights of each and every being. Now you might ask, what about the 8 million that were to be ruthlessly annihilated by the hands of this psychotic man? Yes, in a way this justice system seems strangely disproportionate; however, we must understand that man has the natural tendency to adopt a utilitarian view, in that justice is best achieved by which the mass remain orderly at the expense of the individual. So of which is a better justice system in terms of ideals and which is better in a pragmatic perspective? It really comes down to whether you are an idealist or a utilitarian.
In case 2, this scenario is not so special. It happens all the time in mass casualty incidents. However, I think what would be a bigger dilemma is, let us say a family member was involved in a mass casualty incident. You have limited time and you are to save 1 person. There is another man who is in critical condition along with you family member, but in your mind you know that stranger has a higher chance of survival. Who will you choose? Again, in terms of ideals, you choose the stranger; but in reality, I’m sure in a near unanimous outcome, most of you will choose your family member.
In case 3, I really got the chills. This “social experiment” as described by the joker was so sick and so twisted, it churned my stomach inside out. Whatever happened in the movie, I believe, was the right outcome. Whatever happened, I leave it up to those who haven’t seen the movie find out for themselves (this movie was by far the best I’ve ever seen).
Case 4 brings an interesting dilemma. If it is our choice to choose, is it one suffers for us all? Or is it vice versa? The only twist is, in choosing the more pragmatic option where one suffers for all, we violate the principle of universal justice by stripping the individual’s right to live a normal, happy life? Now some might argue this situation is analogous to Jesus dying for all the transgressions of man thereby justifying the “one suffers for all” theme, but I believe this is a much different moral dilemma. Jesus made the choice for himself, and so his death was of a different moral reasoning. In this case, we are the ones choosing the fate of the individual, and in all cases of the universal justice, it is morally wrong.
No wby no means do I think I am a follower of this universal principle of justice, but I do believe it is a higher level of moral reasoning than utility.
1)
This depends on your theory of time. This is hard to explain here, ask me in person. I would just break his legs and hope that'll change him.
2)This is triage, it is done through out history. Yes I would save those that has a chance to live and leave those who are going to die regardless. I agree with krnchoe, I'll choose a family member.
3)
This is too depressing, I'm already stressed from all the work, I'll leave this one for other people
4)
A doctor's duty is to save lives and when it can't be saved he or she should make it less painful to die. Killing someone is not part of the job description. So I'll have to say no.
Jake, I don't know if you realize, but all 4 of these scenarios are variations of "triage." In order for some to live, others must die.
It really makes you think. It raises questions like, what is the value of a single human life? Can we measure it? Can we say that some people's lives are "worth more" than others?
I generally consider myself utilitarian, so in general I believe it's good when the few take sacrifices as long as its for the betterment of the collective. However, this ideal, when carried out to the extreme, results in many distasteful consequences. I think that a utilitarian, in all four cases, must choose to kill the fewest to save the most. So yes, even in number four, a true utilitarian MUST kill and harvest the organs of a single person (even if it sounds unsavory) if it will save the lives of 10 people, because it will be much better for society if 10 people live and one dies than for 1 person to live while 10 die.
As a corollary to the utilitarian view of the world, when performing triages, you tend to want to save the lives of those most likely to help society. That means: prefer to save smart people over dumb, prefer moral people over immoral, prefer younger, healthier people with their whole lives ahead of them over older people who have already lived a pretty full life.
I'm not sure if I can agree with the full implementation of utilitarianism, but I think almost everybody agrees with the core philosophy of utilitarianism. If you're an unbiased doctor, and you have one heart donor and two people who need it, I think most people would choose to give it to the patient who is smarter, kinder, and younger, and if it goes to a tiebreak, the female over the male.
Pulling aside from the scenarios mentioned, I've been watching a TV show online called "Dexter". He's basically a serial killer, who actually works with the Miami Metro Police, who only targets those who have committed murder before and have managed to escape the justice system. In the second season, the police have found the place where he discards his victims - cut up and put in garbage bags and dumped into the ocean - and try to find this killer.
However, they know that Dexter only kills those who have committed murder before.
So...do you think that Dexter should be prosecuted by the law? The police say that it is wrong to kill a life, but in Dexter's case he's only killing those who would have otherwise been sentenced to die. Would you have just let Dexter keep on killing?
Personally, I would have just left him alone...lol
If you were to time travel back to when Hitler was a child, I think there are other things that you could do to prevent his future actions. Each event in our lives creates a path for something else, so maybe Jake is right, maybe if you just break his legs he'd chosen a different path. I remember Skinner or someone told us that Hitler actually wanted to be an artist and if he was only supported that way, the Holocaust wouldn't have happened.
For that Joker experiment, it really made me lose hope in humanity for a second because I really wasn't sure what would be the outcome. Because...really anything could happen in reality.
Why would the female be chosen over the male?
Because they just are, iono. Why is it that on the Titanic, they only give lifeboats to women and children? I think it's related to chivalry, but I bet it has evolutionary origins. In life-threatening situations, it's always women and children first.
From the utilitarian perspective Dexter may be a "good guy." But then we would have to look at, who did the original murderers kill? Did they kill bad, mean people that are a drain on society? And also, if a second "Dexter" came and killed "Dexter" would he be justified?
From the principles first perspective, it's simply wrong to kill, no matter what. Basically, you must be like MLK or Gandhi, and practice nonviolence, even in the face of violence. Batman actually has a bit of this, how he refuses to kill the Joker. The core idea behind this is that if you stoop down to their level, then they have succeeded in propagating their hatred and violence.
Also, I'm wondering about the act of killing (whether directly or indirectly) as it applies to life general, not just of a human being.
How much do we value to life of an elephant? A dog? A cow? A fly?
We prioritize and weigh the lives of every one of these organisms, the same way that we do so with humans in the situations above.
We'd gladly save an elephant (an endangered species), a dog ('man's best friend'), as opposed to a cow (lunch) or a fly (you'd try to kill it anyway).
1) Justice is the application of punishment after a crime or wrong has been committed. A preemptive strike (as in the movie Minority Report) is not justice but rather a precaution. Also traveling back in time messes a bunch of stuff up, so I don't know that it would be a good idea to kill a Hitler that isn't a killer yet.
2) In the case where you are forced to choose who lives and who dies, the fact of the matter is that you have to choose. You can try to save as many as you can, but if people die it is not your fault. It is pointless to blame yourself. You are not taking life, per se (this is a technical point).
3) I agree with choe.
4) Interesting. I personally believe in the equality of human life (idealistically, of course. I know that if I had to choose between someone I loved and someone I didn't know, I would choose the person I loved). That meaning that the death of a criminal is no less painful than the death of a "good" man. I also never bought the "for the greater good" slogan. It's just a number game, kill one person save ten people. I understand that it is a necessity, but I don't think you can justify it by talking about the greater good. Do wrong if you must, but don't pretend that it is noble.
Martin, how do you not "buy" the "For the Greater Good" idea, and still call yourself Christian? What it says is to help others as much as possible, even if it means sacrificing everything that belongs to you, up to and including your life, etc. It's basically what your favorite historical figure, Jesus, asks you to do, isn't it?
I think that "for the greater good" can also be interpreted as being able to sacrifice reputation/standing in society as well.
For instance, Batman takes the blame for all the bad things done by Two Face, for the betterment of Gotham and the world.
To go even further, I would argue that sometimes "for the greater good" requires you to not only sacrifice reputation, but honor and dignity.
Sometimes you must break laws, and lie or steal. For instance, in the Antebellum South, there were many people who broke the law and violated the property rights of slaveowners by helping the Underground Railroad.
"For the Greater Good" would say that you should kill the slavemaster to free the slave, if that's what it takes.
Post a Comment