EPTOn May 02 2012 10:00 omgimonfire15 wrote:
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
Of course they are unrealistic, the point isn't to establish rules on what to do if these scenarios arise. They are an evaluation of one's morals and priorities. Do you think the needs of the many outweigh the few, even if the few are going to die? What if you personally kill them? Do you find the killing of someone worse than allowing them to die? Do you believe you are obligated to give your life for others or do you believe that you are entitled to your life?
As pointed out before, the concept of letting die vs killing can be related to euthanasia. Is withholding someones medicine the same as overdosing a patient on morphine? In one scenario you can argue you did not directly kill someone. In the other, you are actively taking someones life.
They're not an evaluation of morals or priorities, because they're so ridiculously contrived. The following is pretty much how your examples go:
You own a gun.
No... I don't.
You decide to kill some people with it.
What? No. I would never own a gun, or kill people with it.
Do you want to kill 1 person, or 5 people?
What? This just... No.
Ok. How about this? Do you want to kill 5 people over here, or 5 people over there?
...
Your last paragraph contains slightly more realistic examples. But you still don't actually give enough information to decide anything. Is the person withholding medicine / od-ing a doctor? Are they acting on the patient's wishes or not?
Obviously if it's your job to treat a patient (and perhaps also if not), and you "withhold medicine" that could help them, and that they want, you're culpable for their death. If the patient decides to stop receiving medicine, it's their choice, not yours. This can't really be compared to the second example at all.
In the second example, are you acting on their wishes, and have they considered every option? If so, then I would argue that it's their choice to die. It's your choice whether you help them die or not - which is a matter of deciding how that will affect you, and has very little to do with the person dying.
As for the people's choices, and how society will judge them, that's all specific to the individual circumstances - which makes it silly to use examples like this in the first place. I'm sure there are real examples (and probably court cases) that could be used instead.
