Topic: Would you prefer to live in a country that...
Anonymous A started this discussion 15 years ago#5,976
Is identical to yours, with the exception that when someone gets sick and needs an organ, another person is chosen at random and sacrificed to save the lives of several others? The process would only happen if the person in need because of factors outside their control (no one would be sacrificed to give a lung to a smoker- they brought it on themselves)
> No, that sounds shitty.
Your chances of survival would be greater. That's shitty? > you're a bluebird
And you're a porcupine.
Nimj replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 7 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,960
@previous (A) > Your chances of survival would be greater.[citation needed]
Are you sure about that? For every person whose life is being saved, a random, healthy person is killed. I think the chances of me staying healthy and being picked off to save some random shitstain on the other side of the country are greater than me getting into a fatal accident. I don't like those odds, and I don't like the idea of picking off one normal, healthy, possibly happy, not-dying person to save someone who's dying. that would be fucking dumb gay shit
> And you're a porcupine
NO, I'M NOT. YOU TAKE THAT BACK :@
Anonymous C joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 48 seconds later, 8 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,961
turkey
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 11 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,963
> Are you sure about that? For every person whose life is being saved, a random, healthy person is killed.
No, 1 organ donor means several lives saved. > NO, I'M NOT. YOU TAKE THAT BACK :@
Don't get your quills in a bunch.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 13 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,964
@103,957 (A) > Your chances of survival would be greater. That's shitty?
You also have a chance of being one of the innocent people chosen at random to be killed and have their organs harvested. You also have a good chance of losing a good friend or relative to the program. Even if it never happens, there's still the day to day worry that you or a loved one will be harvested for their organs, which significantly decreases the quality of life for everyone. People whose lives are saved through the program also have to worry about the guilt of knowing that the organ(s) they received may be from someone who was murdered, rather than an organ donor who died simply from unfortunate circumstances. There are clear ethical issues even if overall well-being is increased. Also, we already get a good number of organ donors and save a lot of lives without intentionally killing people for their organs, so the only people who would benefit are the ones who otherwise wouldn't get organs on time. That's not a large enough increase in utility to justify this kind of unethical behavior.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 8 minutes later, 21 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,967
> >Your chances of survival would be greater. That's shitty? > You also have a chance of being one of the innocent people chosen at random to be killed and have their organs harvested.
I said "Your chances of survival would be greater. You would have a chance of being chosen to be sacrificed, but it would not be the same chances as being chosen to receive an organ. Your reply does not address my point, as I didn't merely say "you would have a chance to survive", but I specifically mentioned that the chance would be greater.
> You also have a good chance of losing a good friend or relative to the program.
and a much better chance at keeping a friend or relative alive in the program.
> Even if it never happens, there's still the day to day worry that you or a loved one will be harvested for their organs, which significantly decreases the quality of life for everyone.
If it doesn't happen there is the other worry that your friend or relative (or you) would die because you can't get an organ. And this is much more likely to happen.
> People whose lives are saved through the program also have to worry about the guilt of knowing that the organ(s) they received may be from someone who was murdered, rather than an organ donor who died simply from unfortunate circumstances.
Then allow them to refuse the service.
(Edited 6 minutes later.)
Flapjack !!vHCjY3yik joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 24 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,971
No. Donating organs should be done through consent.
Anonymous F joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,979
New idea: healthy people won't be killed for their organs. Instead, for every 5-10 people who NEED an organ, one of them will be killed and their good organs will go to the rest of the people in that group. That way most will be saved and the healthy population will not be affected.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 29 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,982
@103,971 (Flapjack !!vHCjY3yik)
Consent would be given by remaining in the country. You could leave at any time, but once you were chosen to be sacrificed you would be gone.
Anonymous A (OP) double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 33 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,984
Wow, 5 people would not chose to live in a country where their chance of survival would go up.
Everyone ITT: > *disregards potential for life to be saved* > completely focuses on smaller chance for life to be sacrificed
Falco !PZmcClOUDk joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 36 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,987
OP that idea is fucking stupid, whichever way we look at it.
NO.
Flapjack !!vHCjY3yik replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 38 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,989
@103,982 (A)
That is not a life I would ever want to live. Who wants to live a day in fear from being chosen to be sacrificed?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 41 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,990
@103,967 (A)
You need to re-read what I wrote. I said the answer is still no because even if my chances of being "harvested" are slim, I still have an ethical problem with such a program. Not only would I not want myself or anyone I know to be harvested, but I also wouldn't want to be saved at the expense of someone else's life. I also pointed out that the only lives that would be saved by the program would be those who normally would not get an organ in time. You're making it sound like we either kill innocent people for organs, or we let everyone who needs an organ die. We have an organ donor program now that saves thousands of lives without killing innocent people. Also, what about organs that get rejected? Agents killed in self defense when the person being harvested puts up a fight? The emotional pain of knowing someone close to you was wrongly killed by the government? Ethics are more than just the most good for the most people. Your logic is used in freshman philosophy courses to demonstrate why a purely utilitarian code of ethics does not work. It fails to take into account human rights and basic morality. If torturing 1 person would bring joy and amusement to thousands of people, does that make it ok? No, it does not. It's the same thing here.
And to answer your question once more, my answer is still no, because if I have to choose between worrying that in the event that one of my organs fails I might not find a donor in time to survice, or worry about the government killing people to get organs, I'd rather worry about the chance that I might not find an organ donor on time, and not have to worry about the guilt of someone being murdered on my behalf.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 25 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,991
(Citing a deleted or non-existent reply.)
1 Organ donor = More than one life saved
This isn't rocket science. More people would be saved in this program then would die.
Fuck off, troll.
swamplights !!V3J448+/B joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 23 seconds later, 42 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,992
I think that certain people should sign up for this program and receive a monthly stipend from the government that continues with their family after death.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 51 seconds later, 43 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,993
@103,987 (Falco !PZmcClOUDk)
1 person sacrificed.
3-10 people saved.
If 100 people are sacrificed, that means 300-1000 people are saved.
Do the fucking math, which one are you more likely to end up in?'
Ks !KansasxqvM joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 44 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,994
This thread is tl;dr, but if everyone that could donate organs, actually did donate organs when they died there would hardly be a shortage if at all. Instead the rotten, selfish bastards would rather keep them to rot in the ground or whatever. Most of these people consider themselves to be 'good' people, fuck humanity.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 38 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,995
@103,984 (A)
That's because people in this thread believe in human rights and have morals. They recognize that it's not OK to intentionally kill someone just to potentially save others. Negative rights come before positive rights. Someone's right to not be killed takes precedence over someone else's right to have their life saved.
Even if I was part of some political elite who was immune to this lottery, so I knew that I would never be harvested, I would still say no, because I know that it's morally and ethically wrong.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 24 seconds later, 45 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,996
address my idea, OP, or you are nothing more than a shitty troll.
Man of !WisdomHsuU joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 39 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,997
@103,994 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
Fuck the system of being able to choose whether one's corpse can be used to save another's life or not.
Ks !KansasxqvM replied with this 15 years ago, 22 seconds later, 46 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,998
@103,995 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Killing one to save a thousand would be morally and ethically right. What number defines the line?
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 49 minutes after the original post[^][v]#103,999
@103,993 (A)
You're assuming that those 300-1000 people would otherwise die, and couldn't get organs through a donor program like the one we have now. You're also assuming that those 300-1000 people wouldn't have a problem with someone being murdered on their behalf to save their lives. You're also assuming that none of the organs get rejected and all of those people survive the transplant. You're also assuming that all 300-1000 people would want to go on living in a world where they have to worry about their friends or relatives being harvested.
That's on top of all the grounds I gave for it being unethical and immoral that you choose to ignore on the basis that killing 1 person is automatically OK if you can save at least 3 by doing so, without paying any regard to humans rights.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 51 minutes after the original post[^][v]#104,001
> That's because people in this thread believe in human rights and have morals.
Like the right to live? Considering my system has more people being kept alive than dying than the alternative, mine protects this more.
And morals, apparently holding up that right to life is immoral.. Makes perfect sense!
> They recognize that it's OK to let several people die, so one person can live.
FTFY
> Negative rights come before positive rights. Someone's right to not be killed takes precedence over someone else's right to have their life saved.
I disagree. You have no argument for this, you just state your opinion, so there is nothing to make a counter-point against.
Life is life, letting someone die, and killing someone both mean the same thing in the end. Pushing someone off a cliff is just as lethal as refusing to catch someone who accidenly walks off.
> Even if I was part of some political elite who was immune to this lottery, so I knew that I would never be harvested, I would still say no, because I know that it's morally and ethically wrong.
The moral and ethical thing is to preserve the most innocent lives.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 54 minutes after the original post[^][v]#104,003
@103,998 (Ks !KansasxqvM)
No, I would still say that it depends on the circumstances. Killing one person to save 1000 is still ethically and morally wrong, despite the saved lives.
Let's say I'm in a situation where I can sacrifice myself to save 1000 people. If I were to do so, that would be very noble and kind of me, but I don't have a moral obligation to do so. If I chose to not sacrifice myself, it's a shame that 1000 people died because I chose not to, but it's not an immoral or unethical decision. I'm not morally obligated to kill myself to save 1000 people. If I'm not obligated to kill myself to save 1000 people, then it's certainly not right to force someone else to die to save 1000 people.
Now if I had to do something like kill a fighter pilot to prevent that fighter pilot from killing 1000 people, that's an entirely different situation.
Anonymous F replied with this 15 years ago, 3 minutes later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#104,007
Dude broseph, stop replying. He's obviously a troll.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 32 seconds later, 58 minutes after the original post[^][v]#104,009
> You're assuming that those 300-1000 people would otherwise die, and couldn't get organs through a donor program like the one we have now.
I never said that system wouldn't be around still. This system would only need to be activated in cases where someone is on the verge of dying, and no voluntary organs remain. People do die waiting for organs. > You're also assuming that those 300-1000 people wouldn't have a problem with someone being murdered on their behalf to save their lives.
They could opt-out of the service, and chose to die if that is what the prefer. Never said they would be forced to take them. > You're also assuming that all 300-1000 people would want to go on living in a world where they have to worry about their friends or relatives being harvested.
*sigh* This has already been brought up: There is a greater chance their friends and relatives would be saved, rather than harvested. With the ratio it would be something like 7x greater they would benefit. they could live in LESS fear. > That's on top of all the grounds I gave for it being unethical and immoral that you choose to ignore on the basis that killing 1 person is automatically OK if you can save at least 3 by doing so, without paying any regard to humans rights.
People, when they have no real points tend to fall back on "human rights".
Two systems, one ensures more lives saved than lost? That's the one that protects the right to life the most. That is common sense.
Perhaps you are refering to a more, individualist right, where people are free to have 100% control over there own body. And sure, that right is more protected outside my hypothetical situation, and people would be free to chose to live in a country that protected that right. However such a country would mean more death.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,011
@104,001 (A) > Like the right to live? Considering my system has more people being kept alive than dying than the alternative, mine protects this more.
Re-read what I said about positive and negative rights. People don't have a right to have their lives saved as much as they have a right to not be killed. Negative rights take precedence over positive rights, therefore, no matter how many more people survive because of your system, it's morally bankrupt.
> They recognize that it's OK to let several people die, so one person can live. > FTFY
Letting someone die is not the same as killing someone. If I had to choose between letting three people die or killing one person, I would let three people die. Again, negative rights come before positive rights.
> I disagree. You have no argument for this, you just state your opinion, so there is nothing to make a counter-point against.
It's pretty much an accepted ethical principle, in most circumstances, though there are a few exceptions. I'm not going to post a long-winded proof of this. It's not opinion, it's an ethical concept. I pretty much accept it as a priori. If you don't see the value in accepting it, I think there's something wrong with your moral compass. 7/8 people agree.
> The moral and ethical thing is to preserve the most innocent lives.
Not if it means the intentional sacrifice of others against their will.
Anonymous L joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 2 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,013
Sacrifice is wrong, ok.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,015
All your backing your opinion up with is "it's moral". Morals are not objective, and this tends to be the fallback argument when you can't actually give a reason.
Morality is a matter of culture, and opinion.
Sacrificing one person to save a thousand is easy to justify- one thousand lives outweigh just one. Any reason to ensure the life of the man is also a reason (1000x more of a reason) to ensure the lives of the 1000.
"He has a family"
"They have 1 thousand families"
"He deserves to live"
"They deserve to live"
I've noticed this fallacy of "inaction is never wrong, only direct actions can be good or bad". There is no justification behind this, it's just a commonly accepted aspect of our culture. When you really analyze it, it makes no sense.
There are laws against negligence. If you refuse to help someone, in certain cases you can be held accountable. WE recognize to some extent that inaction can be evil, but people still refuse to accept this on other matters. Unable to justify it, they say only "it's the moral thing to do". When that is the same argument someone of a different moral system would say.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 1 minute later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,016
@104,009 (A) > I never said that system wouldn't be around still. This system would only need to be activated in cases where someone is on the verge of dying, and no voluntary organs remain. People do die waiting for organs.
Yes, but my point is that not enough people die waiting to justify murdering someone to save them. What if you murder someone, and then an hour later someone dies in a car accident and you could have used that person instead. Woops.
> They could opt-out of the service, and chose to die if that is what the prefer. Never said they would be forced to take them.
If they opt out, does that also take them out of the lottery for having their organs harvested? If not, do you see the problem with this?
> *sigh* This has already been brought up: There is a greater chance their friends and relatives would be saved, rather than harvested. With the ratio it would be something like 7x greater they would benefit. they could live in LESS fear.
The probability isn't what matters. It's the moral issue. I would rather have 2 relatives pass away of natural causes than have 1 relative murdered for their organs and have the murderer get away (since the murderer is the government in this case). The idea is, most people would not want to live in a society where their friends and loved ones are killed for their organs, even if it decreases the number of friends and loved ones lost. That's why most people answer "no".
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 double-posted this 15 years ago, 4 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,017
@104,015 (A) > I've noticed this fallacy of "inaction is never wrong, only direct actions can be good or bad". There is no justification behind this, it's just a commonly accepted aspect of our culture. When you really analyze it, it makes no sense.
Actually, it makes perfect sense. There are a few exceptions to the rule where inaction is not justified. Like, if all you have to do if flip a switch to save 1000 lives, then I would never say that your right to not flip a switch is more important than those 1000 lives. Basically, any time the inaction borders on negligence, it's save to say that inaction is wrong. But you're assuming that because morals are not 100% objective, that means there are no morals and the only way to have a moral society is to do whatever keeps the most people alive, despite who or what has to be sacrificed to do so. a) Most people would not be happy in this sort of society, as your poll shows, which would actually be a decrease in utility, and b) the ends do not always justify the means, and you can't just ignore morals.
Anonymous A (OP) replied with this 15 years ago, 5 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,020
@previous (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4)
Back to the sacrificing 1 for 1000. This is not the light switch, this is simply killing one to save many.
How do you justify saying that killing one is worse than letting 1000 die?
You say inaction in this case is justifiable, but that action is not. There is no logic to this.
"It's not moral/ethical" is not an answer, it's your opinion. I'm wondering how you came to this opinion.
Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4 replied with this 15 years ago, 19 minutes later, 1 hour after the original post[^][v]#104,042
There are reasons why philosophers believe this. Like I said, I'm just not going to get into the long-winded proofs. Even if it is just my opinion, everyone went against you in the poll, so there's that. Also, your argument is that people would be happier under your system, but "happy" is subjective, just like opinions. If everyone votes no in the poll, then it's safe to say that most people would not be happy under your system, which makes the system moot. It's a morally bankrupt type of collectivism.
You also never answered my question here: @104,016 (Broseph !!fxnDb+Ve4) > If they opt out, does that also take them out of the lottery for having their organs harvested? If not, do you see the problem with this?
Falco !PZmcClOUDk replied with this 15 years ago, 2 hours later, 3 hours after the original post[^][v]#104,111
> 1 person sacrificed. > 3-10 people saved. > > If 100 people are sacrificed, that means 300-1000 people are saved. > >Do the fucking math, which one are you more likely to end up in?'
Since accidents happen all the time, and people can't always pay for it, it could happen to me or my friends. they'd get their organs taken away just cause some chump has no insurance. I mean seriously what
you know what. fuck it. stop posting here toaster.
mountainman joined in and replied with this 15 years ago, 1 day later, 1 day after the original post[^][v]#105,149
OP doesn't understand that people may philosophically object to an idea that materially benefits them.
i.e. Kill all Jews, redistribute their property.
I am not Jewish, so this would materially benefit me, yet I have philosophical objections.