A Test of Morality

[Darth Mad]

For myself, only if the teen show BIG mental problem, i would still choose him. He could be a drug addict, raper and mean bastard, chances are i wont know it in a 5 or 10 mins conversation. But i know for sure he did grownt up to 15, the baby did not.

sure its not the baby fault, but the baby we only have potential, the teen have show some achivement, thats the only thing we can know for sure and the only thing we should consider.

Now if i knew for sure the teen was a drug addict, raper and mean bastard i would choose the baby. But if i only THINK, ill choose the teen. For all we know, it could be unfounded. For all we know, the baby could turn worse.

Similar logic to this is what kept me from wanting to get into medicine- what if you have to heal someone you don't think should survive- I'd have a hard time not refusing to help them.

Do you think you would help more people not derserving it or people derserving it?
and how do you judge someone not derserving your help?

 

[Darth Mad]

Still, do you belive you would save more people that will cause harm to others in the future?
or do you belive that you will save more normal everyday guys like me and, i hope, you too

Because if you refuse to enter medecine because you dont want to help a minority of people that you consider should die, you also deny good people help and health.

dont take it bad, but it look immoral to me

but dont think i dont understant your point of view

 

[Darth Mad]

Its probably because i would not take responsability for one's action because i saved his life. You cannot know what people will do after you save they lifes. And if you do, they is always the option of calling the police i suppose.

the big think i guess that i do not agree with you is how you judge that someone should die instead of helping him. I do not belive i posses the moral right to choice if its better if someone should live, its not something individual should decide, because then you open the door for arbitrary decision.

Of course ultimatly the decision is your. If you cannot overcome that feeling then its better to choose another path. But saying that doctors still exist should not be an excuse. Because without you, they will be one less doctor, less saving capacity, so to speak. It might not sound big, but it does make a difference.

But as i said, its up to you.

 

[James Cassidy]

My question is who is the person who comes up with these situations? A train would not be traveling down a track if the bridge was out in the first place. Plus if the train conductor is smart enough he would pull the break. Even if it doesn't stop it could slow it down enough to allow the passengers to jump out. Of course it depends on what kind of train it is. I can't think of a train with ONLY 5 passengers on it.

As for the hospital one. You have to look at the outcome. Sometimes even a transplant won;t save the people being treated. Plus, for many people, it depends on their age. If they are too old, some would be deemed inoperable for the transplant. What's the point of the organ if I can;t do the transplant in the first place

You can't just kill a random person to save another without good reason to.

Both situations are flawed and both are not the same. The train has a third option of all three surviving. 2. Someone is stupid enough to play ON the train tracks.

For the hospital one, if I might add, how does someone know that the organs one guy has is not already bad and tainted. So everyone either way. Depends on what they have wrong with them and what organs have failed or are failing.

As for everything else....Let God sort them out.

 

[Darth Mad]

i used to think like that, then i realized that with that kind of thiking, you could make you responsable for saving a killer, then your mother for giving you birth, then her mother for giving birth of a women who will give birth of a man who will save a killer, etc.

i will never blame your grandpa, even if a laser guided missile kill me. i can blame the guy who launche the missile but thats about it (it depend of the situation of course)

 

[Darth Mad]

My question is who is the person who comes up with these situations? A train would not be traveling down a track if the bridge was out in the first place. Plus if the train conductor is smart enough he would pull the break. Even if it doesn't stop it could slow it down enough to allow the passengers to jump out. Of course it depends on what kind of train it is. I can't think of a train with ONLY 5 passengers on it.

As for the hospital one. You have to look at the outcome. Sometimes even a transplant won;t save the people being treated. Plus, for many people, it depends on their age. If they are too old, some would be deemed inoperable for the transplant. What's the point of the organ if I can;t do the transplant in the first place

You can't just kill a random person to save another without good reason to.

Both situations are flawed and both are not the same. The train has a third option of all three surviving. 2. Someone is stupid enough to play ON the train tracks.

For the hospital one, if I might add, how does someone know that the organs one guy has is not already bad and tainted. So everyone either way. Depends on what they have wrong with them and what organs have failed or are failing.

As for everything else....Let God sort them out.

these questions are not made to make since, the answers those. they are meant to know what people will choice based on moral and beliefs issues. these scenario are more then unlikely to exist, but situation similar, plausible.

this is philosophy stuff

 

[WolfMage]

But I'm House, I can save everyone!
[1] Flip the switch.
[2] Plug the bastard with a pistol shot to the head, when he isn't looking.

Actually, it's "I'm Dr Cox, I can make sarcastic comments about everyone then tell my protogee how to save them!!!!!"

No, I had it right.
Although they are nearly interchangeable.