There is also the Kantian deontological approach, which would say let the five die in both instances because one has an inviolable duty not to terminate an innocent life--regardless of the consequences. It certainly is a pickle of a problem.
I love your Thomas the Tank Engine and Lego people illustrations. lol Very cute. :)
Well, in the train situation, he has no choice but to kill at least one person, so he should try to kill as few as possible. I didn't know trains could change directions though -- I thought that was done by the track operators.
The organ situation: of course, he should not murder anyone (and steal). But you do not know whether the people who need organs deserve to live, or whether John deserves to live. What if he's a criminal?
The only reason he should consider hitting the five is because it's possible the impact of the people in front will throw the people behind them off the track, or cushion the blow, so they don't all get a direct hit.
Even if John is a criminal, she cannot kill him unless there's been a trial and he's found guilty of a crime worthy of capital punishment. Even though, I'm not sure she still has a right to take his organs.
The other people who need his organs will just have to wait and die. You don't deserve something that isn't yours just because you don't have one of your own.
No one gives me a Playstation 3 even though I need one. I need one for business purposes to learn about the modern game industry! This is my livelihood! Economics!
Comment removed
VlogAndAwaaaay 3 weeks ago
what the f*** is this ???
tfk8623 5 months ago
There is also the Kantian deontological approach, which would say let the five die in both instances because one has an inviolable duty not to terminate an innocent life--regardless of the consequences. It certainly is a pickle of a problem.
I love your Thomas the Tank Engine and Lego people illustrations. lol Very cute. :)
ElasticGiraffe 1 year ago
Besides, do you even need a kidney? Can you, like, get by with just one?
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
Yes you can
ngath19 1 year ago
Since he's using a train, he isn't really culpable for any people or animals he hits that are on the track.
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
Well, in the train situation, he has no choice but to kill at least one person, so he should try to kill as few as possible. I didn't know trains could change directions though -- I thought that was done by the track operators.
The organ situation: of course, he should not murder anyone (and steal). But you do not know whether the people who need organs deserve to live, or whether John deserves to live. What if he's a criminal?
I don't think the two situations compare.
Also I don't know
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
Also I don't know why the people on the tracks can't just jump off or step aside.
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
The only reason he should consider hitting the five is because it's possible the impact of the people in front will throw the people behind them off the track, or cushion the blow, so they don't all get a direct hit.
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
Even if John is a criminal, she cannot kill him unless there's been a trial and he's found guilty of a crime worthy of capital punishment. Even though, I'm not sure she still has a right to take his organs.
The other people who need his organs will just have to wait and die. You don't deserve something that isn't yours just because you don't have one of your own.
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
No one gives me a Playstation 3 even though I need one. I need one for business purposes to learn about the modern game industry! This is my livelihood! Economics!
stalepieonceagain 2 years ago
enter deontological ethics.
gstamets4 2 years ago