1. Should We Kill Healthy People For Their Organs?

**BoneCrusher** · 11-20-2008, 06:52 PM

This was interesting ...

Source BBC

It's World Philosophy Day - an opportunity to contemplate one's very existence and whether computer monitors really exist, says David Bain.
1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE 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?

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?
Consider a photo of someone you think is you eight years ago. What makes that person you? You might say he she was composed of the same cells as you now. But most of your cells are replaced every seven years. You might instead say you're an organism, a particular human being, and that organisms can survive cell replacement - this oak being the same tree as the sapling I planted last year.
But are you really an entire human being? If surgeons swapped George Bush's brain for yours, surely the Bush look-alike, recovering from the operation in the White House, would be you. Hence it is tempting to say that you are a human brain, not a human being.
But why the brain and not the spleen? Presumably because the brain supports your mental states, eg your hopes, fears, beliefs, values, and memories. But then it looks like it's actually those mental states that count, not the brain supporting them. So the view is that even if the surgeons didn't implant your brain in Bush's skull, but merely scanned it, wiped it, and then imprinted its states on to Bush's pre-wiped brain, the Bush look-alike recovering in the White House would again be you.
But the view faces a problem: what if surgeons imprinted your mental states on two pre-wiped brains: George Bush's and Gordon Brown's? Would you be in the White House or in Downing Street? There's nothing on which to base a sensible choice. Yet one person cannot be in two places at once.
In the end, then, no attempt to make sense of your continued existence over time works. You are not the person who started reading this article.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?
What reason do you have to believe there's a computer screen in front of you? Presumably that you see it, or seem to. But our senses occasionally mislead us. A straight stick half-submerged in water sometimes look bent; two equally long lines sometimes look different lengths.

Are things always as they seem? The Muller-Lyer illusion indicates not

But this, you might reply, doesn't show that the senses cannot provide good reasons for beliefs about the world. By analogy, even an imperfect barometer can give you good reason to believe it's about to rain.
Before relying on the barometer, after all, you might independently check it by going outside to see whether it tends to rain when the barometer indicates that it will. You establish that the barometer is right 99% of the time. After that, surely, its readings can be good reasons to believe it will rain.
Perhaps so, but the analogy fails. For you cannot independently check your senses. You cannot jump outside of the experiences they provide to check they're generally reliable. So your senses give you no reason at all to believe that there is a computer screen in front of you."

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?
Suppose that Fred existed shortly after the Big Bang. He had unlimited intelligence and memory, and knew all the scientific laws governing the universe and all the properties of every particle that then existed. Thus equipped, billions of years ago, he could have worked out that, eventually, planet Earth would come to exist, that you would too, and that right now you would be reading this article.
After all, even back then he could have worked out all the facts about the location and state of every particle that now exists.
And once those facts are fixed, so is the fact that you are now reading this article. No one's denying you chose to read this. But your choice had causes (certain events in your brain, for example), which in turn had causes, and so on right back to the Big Bang. So your reading this was predictable by Fred long before you existed. Once you came along, it was already far too late for you to do anything about it.
Now, of course, Fred didn't really exist, so he didn't really predict your every move. But the point is: he could have. You might object that modern physics tells us that there is a certain amount of fundamental randomness in the universe, and that this would have upset Fred's predictions. But is this reassuring? Notice that, in ordinary life, it is precisely when people act unpredictably that we sometimes question whether they have acted freely and responsibly. So freewill begins to look incompatible both with causal determination and with randomness. None of us, then, ever do anything freely and responsibly."

IN CONCLUSION
Let me be clear: the point is absolutely not that you or I must bite these bullets. Some philosophers have a taste for bullets; but few would accept all the conclusions above and many would accept none. But the point, when you reject a conclusion, is to diagnose where the argument for it goes wrong.
Doing this in philosophy goes hand-in-hand with the constructive side of our subject, with providing sane, rigorous, and illuminating accounts of central aspects of our existence: freewill, morality, justice, beauty, consciousness, knowledge, truth, meaning, and so on.
Rarely does this allow us to put everything back where we found it. There are some surprises, some bullets that have to be bitten; sometimes it's a matter simply of deciding which. But even when our commonsense conceptions survive more or less intact, understanding is deepened. As TS Eliot once wrote:
"â€¦the end of our exploring,
Will be to arrive where we started,
And know the place for the first time."

**PreMier** · 11-20-2008, 07:49 PM

**KEFE** · 11-20-2008, 08:13 PM

didnt read it but it sounds like a plan, lets go. are you the bonecrusher from bb.com?

**Stewart14** · 11-20-2008, 08:55 PM

Was this the script for the Matrix Reloaded???

Oh, and that first question is just dumb on so many levels, it isn't even philosophical to me.

**BoneCrusher** · 11-20-2008, 09:07 PM

Originally Posted by KEFE

didnt read it but it sounds like a plan, lets go. are you the bonecrusher from bb.com?

No KEFE I only post here at IM, and even here mot so much right now.

**vader** · 11-20-2008, 09:07 PM

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

only if they are on death row or serving a life term in prison

**Little Wing** · 11-20-2008, 09:38 PM

vieope wrote that didn't he?

**BoneCrusher** · 11-21-2008, 12:23 AM

It is like something he'd come up with ...

**Splash Log** · 11-21-2008, 01:10 AM

That so called philosophy is absolute bullshit, PHIL101 turd sandwich. Only thought provoking in those that are absolutely retarded. Its like a fucking brain in a jar argument, are you really here? Is this real? Or are you just a brain in a jar being stimulated by electrodes? If this was on paper I would wipe my ass with it, and even that may be giving it too much credit.

**maniclion** · 11-21-2008, 01:49 AM

1: No survival of the fittest rules that out; I'll agree and then shoot the kidnapper; I'll switch the Tram at the instant at which it's momentum can't safely make the switch and cause it to derail killing no one except maybe myself but probably not....

2:If my brain is swapped I'd still have phantom memories of my old body, like aches I've lived with for decades and what not just like people who lose a limb so we do have a certain attachment to our bodies mentally....

3:LSD helps me check my senses....

4

f course I chose to, I am my own god I rule my destiny and my fate..

**BoneCrusher** · 11-21-2008, 04:52 AM

Originally Posted by Splash Log

That so called philosophy is absolute bullshit, PHIL101 turd sandwich. Only thought provoking in those that are absolutely retarded. Its like a fucking brain in a jar argument, are you really here? Is this real? Or are you just a brain in a jar being stimulated by electrodes? If this was on paper I would wipe my ass with it, and even that may be giving it too much credit.

If that were the case splash then you'd be able to wipe any part of your body with it, since you are an asshole. Little lady your inner gayness has motivated you to follow me around with the habit of trolling me and talking shit. Last time it was in a thread posted to express how 911 affected us. Now THAT was a thread where you should have had enough class to keep your cum sucker shut, but ... you being you all you could do was talk shit. Predictably, you're in here with more of your dribble. You're not even amusing, let alone witty so do us both a favor and just fuck off.

You don't like me? SURPRISE!!! Nobody cares. Just don't follow me around with your inane insults cuz you're just not very good at it, and ... well ... kinda boring.

**KentDog** · 11-21-2008, 05:37 AM

Originally Posted by Stewart20

Oh, and that first question is just dumb on so many levels, it isn't even philosophical to me.

+1. How do they go from taking organs from Bill, who would otherwise remain alive and healthy, to the bank scenario where if you didn't shoot him, he would be dead too?

**Vieope** · 11-21-2008, 05:58 AM

I agree, kill one person take his organs and save five other people. Then when those five other people get better, kill them and take their organs and save 10 people then when those 10 people get better..

**The Monkey Man** · 11-21-2008, 07:38 AM

Originally Posted by vader

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

only if they are on death row or serving a life term in prison

Or have continued to reproduce and collect welfare for the span of three children or more.

Or are homeless/helpless.
(especially those annoying professionnal panhandlers on freeway off ramp)

**Splash Log** · 11-21-2008, 10:03 AM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

If that were the case splash then you'd be able to wipe any part of your body with it, since you are an asshole. Little lady your inner gayness has motivated you to follow me around with the habit of trolling me and talking shit. Last time it was in a thread posted to express how 911 affected us. Now THAT was a thread where you should have had enough class to keep your cum sucker shut, but ... you being you all you could do was talk shit. Predictably, you're in here with more of your dribble. You're not even amusing, let alone witty so do us both a favor and just fuck off.

You don't like me? SURPRISE!!! Nobody cares. Just don't follow me around with your inane insults cuz you're just not very good at it, and ... well ... kinda boring.

Ewww, a little sensitive today i see. I commented on what you posted, considering you copy pasted it and weren't the original author I don't see how my comments were offensive to you. Sorry to inform you but not everything I post in a thread that you have posted in has to be about you, only 99% is.

**BoneCrusher** · 11-21-2008, 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by Splash Log

Ewww, a little sensitive today i see. I commented on what you posted, considering you copy pasted it and weren't the original author I don't see how my comments were offensive to you. Sorry to inform you but not everything I post in a thread that you have posted in has to be about you, only 99% is.

Yeahhhh ... not buying it. Passive aggressive or overtly aggressive ... it's the same bullshit, you're just chewing it a little different before you spew it out. Either way get off my nuts.

**tallcall** · 11-22-2008, 11:09 AM

I'm pretty much a firm believer in killing everyone and everything that disagrees with me, so I say kill 'em all - including those unhealthy people who are causing this problem.

**BoneCrusher** · 11-22-2008, 11:57 AM

Originally Posted by KentDog

+1. How do they go from taking organs from Bill, who would otherwise remain alive and healthy, to the bank scenario where if you didn't shoot him, he would be dead too?

One of the payoffs of a shifting philosophical vantage point is that following the thought process behind the shift through its change allows those involved to perceive the world from the singular to the societal perspective. Basically, a person is forced to see things from a perspective outside of his or her own relative primalistic need. Most people just don't do that normally.

So, place your self in the role of the organ donor, the single person on the track, or the person taking the bullet for the good of the group. Then shift out to see your self from the perspective of the other players. After you have defined the rights and wrongs ... apply that rule set to the welfare state, to gun control, or even to your obligations as a member of society during a time of war and international conflict.

Philosophy is an exercise of understanding, not a sharp critical surface debate. Don't focus so much on the details of but rather on the applications.

Originally Posted by vader

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

only if they are on death row or serving a life term in prison

I'm with you on the use of the about to be dead, though I don't agree with the death penalty itself.

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

Or have continued to reproduce and collect welfare for the span of three children or more.

Or are homeless/helpless.
(especially those annoying professional panhandlers on freeway off ramp)

You're frightening the children Monkey Man.

**tallcall** · 11-22-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally Posted by tallcall

I'm pretty much a firm believer in killing everyone and everything that disagrees with me, so I say kill 'em all - including those unhealthy people who are causing this problem.

...And while we're murdering everyone, can we also cannibalize them? I'm thinking of opening a "specialty shop."

**BoneCrusher** · 11-22-2008, 04:05 PM

Originally Posted by tallcall

...And while we're murdering everyone, can we also cannibalize them? I'm thinking of opening a "specialty shop."

You're going to have to do a litlle gardening maybe ...

**Splash Log** · 11-24-2008, 11:24 AM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Yeahhhh ... not buying it. Passive aggressive or overtly aggressive ... it's the same bullshit, you're just chewing it a little different before you spew it out. Either way get off my nuts.

Yeeeeeeah ok, well considering there was nothing about you in my post I guess I will try and not criticize anything you post.

As for being on your nuts, I think I am little to old for you.

**The Monkey Man** · 11-24-2008, 07:21 PM

This is dumb....

The Brits used cadavers instead of crash test dummies to design
airbag and seatbelt systems for cars and aircraft...

Then use of dead bodies was outlawed for ritual or sentimental reasons...

They discovered more info in a single series of tests than
through the entire history of testing by ANY automaker...

In fact all crash tests in early american auto testing used human corpses.

What a waste -

**BoneCrusher** · 11-27-2008, 09:22 PM

Originally Posted by Splash Log

Yeeeeeeah ok, well considering there was nothing about you in my post I guess I will try and not criticize anything you post.

As for being on your nuts, I think I am little to old for you.

Thanks. That's all I'm asking. You don't like me that's your gig. Live and let live splash. Happy Thanksgiving.

**Splash Log** · 11-28-2008, 12:35 AM

Originally Posted by BoneCrusher

Thanks. That's all I'm asking. You don't like me that's your gig. Live and let live splash. Happy Thanksgiving.

Operative word being "try"

**maniclion** · 11-28-2008, 03:35 AM

Originally Posted by The Monkey Man

This is dumb....

The Brits used cadavers instead of crash test dummies to design
airbag and seatbelt systems for cars and aircraft...

Then use of dead bodies was outlawed for ritual or sentimental reasons...

They discovered more info in a single series of tests than
through the entire history of testing by ANY automaker...

In fact all crash tests in early american auto testing used human corpses.

What a waste -

They could still use pig carcasses....
"The most commonly used animal subjects in cabin-collision studies were pigs, primarily because their internal structure is similar to a human's. Pigs can also be placed in a vehicle in a good approximation of a seated human."

But they don't because it's messy. has health risks and we now have super computerized crash test dummys that can simulate just about anything you want.....

Thread: 1. Should We Kill Healthy People For Their Organs?

Thread Tools

Display

1. Should We Kill Healthy People For Their Organs?

Similar Threads

Benefit Of Aspirin For Healthy People Is Uncertain

Healthy Breakfast Recipes for People in a Hurry

Internal Organs

Benefit Of Aspirin For Healthy People Is Uncertain

Most people should kill themselves

Posting Permissions