Should we kill healthy people for their organs?

kemo wrote: 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?

No, it's not right to kill Bill to give others his organs. Firstly, murder is illegal by most societal rules. Secondly, you don't know if the other people's bodies will even accept his organs. No...unless Bill is a volunteer but that's tricky too.

Kidnappers lie. He will most likely kill all of you. Therefore why play his game?

That's the trickiest one. How would I know how to oporate the train? Where's the conductor? How much time do I have to decide? Is there time to stop? Probably, though, that solo hostage would be SOL...unless you decide to live by "fate" and let the train do what it does without any intervention...though most people would feel too guilty to do that...then again by switching the train you are commiting murder vs. doing nothing you're not directly involved. You can take on the murderers guilt or you can leave it with the person who tied those people on the tracks.

The difference between Bill and the other two scenarios is that you are put into the role of the "bad guy". By killing Bill you are now the kidnapper/train track psycho. You are making a premeditated decision to kill a person for not that good of a reason. The people who need the organs have had bad luck, yes, but a fair chance by natures standards (which isn't really fair, I know). Why should Bill have to pay for being lucky enough (or smart enough...we don't know how he's in good health or how they're in bad health) to have a healthy body? And what makes those 5 deserving of his sacrifice?

One more time: Does Bill volunteer?

kemo wrote: 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?

Only if they (the person donating) chooses to do this freely and without coercion

kemo wrote: 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.)

I would ask someone to sacrifice themselves, if they did not... I wouldn't do it

kemo wrote: 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?

I would probably divert the tram

But then why not kill Bill? This is a different set of circumstances. Firstly on a 'runaway tram' you probably only have a few seconds to make a decision. There is no time to make a considered choice. You do not have time to ask someone to give up their life and there is no human component in this case. They will die anyway, no chance of 'convincing' the tram otherwise...

Either way I would be devastated...

These arguments are utilitarian. Utilitarianism is popular demand, popular demand doesn't mean that such a decision is moral... not in my book by far...

When dealing with cases of morality it is completely unfair to reduce people to numbers. 1 vs 5.

A utilitarian should be in favour of torture. Sure 1 person suffers horribly but at least you save someone... but what is worth saving?

When you sacrifice morals in the face of preserving life you have to ask what is the worth of the life you're saving?

Don't make an argument on numbers... make an argument on your morals... what life or society is worth saving that condones such actions?

The last question I ask, and it applies to me, is what would actually happen given answers provided...

Many that live deserve death. And some die that deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then be not too eager to deal out death in the name of justice, fearing for your own safety. Even the wise cannot see all ends. - J.R.R.Tolkien

And ferreire... pre-emptive strikes are defensive in nature. It is a different thing to kill people who are about to shoot you than to kill people who are just sitting there doing nothing and going about their day...

ferreire580 wrote: Like I said too, it's not an easy choice at all. I don't want to be in that situation and I hope nobody ever does. But I would save as many people as I could. Like killing as many terrorists as possible because they may kill more. How would things have worked out if the leaders of Al-queda had been killed and 9-11 never happened. Tell me you wouldn't stop that if you had the chance. Osama bin Laden was a life like any other, but he was a terrible person and his death may have saved thousands. Again few for many.

Let's also not underestimate the fact of what people can accomplish and how far they can rise above despair when faced with such horrible acts. There are amazing examples of heroism that would be lost, too, when you take away the bad that led to someone needing to become the hero. I also think of Les Miserables here, too...the Catholic priest is a wonderful example of rising above what makes the common-man/woman explode with anger and vengeance.

I am not a theist, but I've heard many times from people that they would not change their lives for anything because their trials and losses (in their minds) brought them closer to God. Should we take that away from them? How do we know what's best for people and what tragedies they should/should not endure?

On the topic of the OP, I definitely would not kill the man unless he was willing to do it. The Force gave him his life with good organs, and the Force gave those five people faulty organs; it's their burden to bear, and I'm not going to mess with that unless Bill was willing to do something.

Regards to the kidnapper, I agree with the previous Jedi that said: kidnappers lie, don't trust them.

For the train. Hell! I'm on a runaway train! I'm thinking about trying to stop the damn thing, not how many people I can see on a track that are tied up to it. I have a wife and kids that rely on me, I'm trying to save my own arse first!

Watch the movie "7 pounds"

It's pretty good, and relevent to this discussion and the previous one...

There's always a large number of variables to consider in every situation before making a decision and taking action...we must first gather as much info as possible, then go from there...

ferreire580 wrote:

Zenchi wrote: Does Bill volunteer? If not, does Bill own guns? Does Bill have other "friends" who also have guns? In the other scenereos, the reader is forced into the situations, where Bill was not. Lets see you spout off "the needs of the many" while telling your neighbors one of them has to die because every member of your family requires an organ transplant, get back to me on how that turns out...

If it was life for life I wouldn't ask for anything. Even for a family member. And I would gladly give my own life for many more. And I would hope people would do the same, though I know they wouldn't.

A thin line between being generous, or plain naive, dont ya think? (dont mean it in an insulting way )

Akkarin wrote:
These arguments are utilitarian. Utilitarianism is popular demand, popular demand doesn't mean that such a decision is moral... not in my book by far...

When dealing with cases of morality it is completely unfair to reduce people to numbers. 1 vs 5.

A utilitarian should be in favour of torture. Sure 1 person suffers horribly but at least you save someone... but what is worth saving?

When you sacrifice morals in the face of preserving life you have to ask what is the worth of the life you're saving?

Let me put it this way, excluding morals for a sec, would u kill a person to save 5 others? Assuming u answer that with a yes, would u answer "SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?" with the same answer, without thinking it over and over again, with the same mind set as the previous?...


I mean honestly, we keep asking ourselves who are we to take life, who are we to choose who lives and dies, but what we should be really asking is why do we actually do it?

Why do we actually take life?

kemo wrote:

ferreire580 wrote:

Zenchi wrote: Does Bill volunteer? If not, does Bill own guns? Does Bill have other "friends" who also have guns? In the other scenereos, the reader is forced into the situations, where Bill was not. Lets see you spout off "the needs of the many" while telling your neighbors one of them has to die because every member of your family requires an organ transplant, get back to me on how that turns out...

If it was life for life I wouldn't ask for anything. Even for a family member. And I would gladly give my own life for many more. And I would hope people would do the same, though I know they wouldn't.

A thin line between being generous, or plain naive, dont ya think? (dont mean it in an insulting way )

My point, which you seemed to have missed, was whether this Bill had a choice or not, because it makes a huge difference. The question still has yet to be answered I might add...

Excluding morals, the question would be pointless. One could also argue that excluding morals, why should I save those 5 people?

The question "why do we actually take life" assumes that one would take life readily - that is not the normal behavior. Human moral revolves around "if I kill someone, what's preventing someone else from killing me?" Where does this end? Without moral guidance to prevent the killing in the first place, everyone would have one reason or another to kill someone.

So no, a normal person would not want to bear the burden of having to end the life of another. Yes, while it may mean death to the other five people, but it's not the same as having to be the one that's 100% responsible for killing someone.

Kill Bill: No, that man might still be able to impact others.

Kill one to save the many: Is the one guy present? If so, why wouldn't I shoot him? If not, well then, I'm not killing anyone, instead I'm going have the police show up on scene, explain to them what horrors I saw, receive medical and psychological help all the while getting up my strength to testify against the guy because he was most likely dumb enough to leave clues as to who he is. I'm not going to kill an innocent by my own hand.

Train: Am I savvy enough to know how to derail the train? Because I could totally try that, with the one person as my target if I can't do so successfully.