greater good, lesser of two evils and decision making

[Pitiless Wanderer]

A man has discovered the cure for cancer and millions of people will be saved.


A baby is 1 month old, healthy and full of life, completely unaffected by the perversions of man.


Both are in front of you and you have to eliminate one or the other. If you do not, your family will be eliminated. One of your family members has cancer...


who do you eliminate, and why?





(shit, this is a pretty depressing thread, LOL)

 

[derek]

Logically: The baby.

I'd also argue thats not utilitarian, but simply logical.

BUT these situations are totally mental, no-one is ever really put in such positions.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

you'd sacrifice an innocent baby for the greater good?

 

[speed]

Lets just sacrifice both of them, and wash our hands of it. Kidding.

This is a most Shakespearian question: do the ends justify the means. I dont think I'd ever be in the position to make this decision, but I suppose I would kill the baby.

 

[derek]

you'd sacrifice an innocent baby for the greater good?

Yup. Why not? It's entirely logical?

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

I would actually be interested in hearing a logical justification for killing the man with the cancer cure. This is not to suggest that a reasoning for that choice cannot be made, rather that most who would choose such an option cannot support it with any validity (at least those that I have encountered).

 

[derek]

I would actually be interested in hearing a logical justification for killing the man with the cancer cure. This is not to suggest that a reasoning for that choice cannot be made, rather that most who would choose such an option cannot support it with any validity (at least those that I have encountered).

The killing of the baby is seen as wrong for a number of reasons extraneous to the actual issue, for example: they are cute, defenceless etc.

The reason for killing the man would be his status as a rapist, which seems irrational.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

The killing of the baby is seen as wrong for a number of reasons extraneous to the actual issue, for example: they are cute, defenceless etc.

The reason for killing the man would be his status as a rapist, which seems irrational.

Yes, setting aside moral standards and preconceptions it seems difficult to logically argue that a single childs life is not outwieghed in value over a man would could, potentially, save millions.

 

[derek]

Yes, setting aside moral standards and preconceptions it seems difficult to logically argue that a single childs life is not outwieghed in value over a man would could, potentially, save millions.

Yup. When a value system is removed (regardless of what that value system is) we're left with a cold, clinical, logical decision; kill the baby. The only supportable reason for killing the man would be as part of a value system that feels rapists deserve to die.

 

[petehis kahn]

The killing of the baby is seen as wrong for a number of reasons extraneous to the actual issue, for example: they are cute, defenceless etc.

The reason for killing the man would be his status as a rapist, which seems irrational.

when was it listed the man was a rapist. *confused*

If you changed the question to either kill the baby or wipe the memory of the cure from the mans mind you might get a more interesting response, forcing us to commit murder one way or the other is going to let us take the easy way out.

Kill the baby.

Kill the baby or the man they are both on my soul, but at least the weight of a thousand other potential deaths aren't on there as well.

If on the other hand it was wipe the mans memory or kill the baby, that is a tougher question indeed. I would wipe the mans memory, for if we are going to argue that what I would be doing is the same as murdering those people who have cancer it comes down to the famous question

is not giving money to charity the same as going to india and shooting some peasants.

 

[derek]

The first time the post was made, the man was a rapist. It has been edited since, if you check.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

i listed originally that the man was a rapist, then edited it out.

 

[derek]

Simple logic still applies: kill the baby.

 

[En Vind Av Sorg]

The man could be Albert Fish and my response would still remain the same.

 

[petehis kahn]

Simple logic still applies: kill the baby.

So everything you do is by logic is it and only logic

 

[derek]

So everything you do is by logic is it and only logic

Of course not, but it remains a simple choice.

Outside turning the gun upon oneself, The baby is the one to kill.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

What if the baby was going to grow up and discover the cure for AIDS?

 

[derek]

You cannot really base the decision on "what ifs" because, by that logic, the baby may also create a new super-weapon.

Plus...aids has killed 20,000,000 since 1980. I think cancer has a higher death rate.

 

[Pitiless Wanderer]

so youd look for the higher death rate per disease and save the person with that cure.

 

[derek]

I'd prefer to kill no-one, Devy. However, I am just basing my decisions on what information I have.

You said one MUST be killed, and I'm choosing the one that (based on what I know) seems the most coldy, logical.