Should the healthy be killed for their organs?
Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok painlessly to kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five, why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the cab of a runaway tram and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the tram on to the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the tram left, killing one to save five.
But then why not kill Bill?
|
1
point
This was already discussed in another debate 2 weeks ago: http://www.createdebate.com/debate/show/ 1
point
Are you in an Ethics class, because we just covered this in mine! Basically, according to Kant, either option is fine (kill or don't kill) provided everyone is a rational being, because rational beings have intrinsic worth, and you're attempting to save their life. According to John Stuart Mill, kill the one to save the five because the five is a greater good than the one. According to Aristotle, it depends on who devotes themselves to the furthering of their knowledge. Epicurus would say don't worry about them, just do your own thing, provided it gives you pleasure and not pain. And Sartre would say there is no real ethical reason here, as ethics are a human creation designed to reinforce the image of ourselves we have chosen to create. Personally, on an issue like this, I kind of think Kant is right. Both sides can be justified and in either direction, people would be making the most ethical choice they could. |
