Moral Theories - Scenario 1

[oneoctavelow]

First in, first served :-) save the man's life of course. If a doctor's job is indeed to save lives then he/she must save the homeless' man life. He gets to keep his organs, he'll need them before anyone else. A utilitarian will no sought recognize that no transplants would be needed :-)

[esiosan]

Consider that the homeless man is likely a drunk and/or drug-addict and his organs may not be healthy enough to help anyone out :)

[godlessyurifan]

This is why I'm not a utilitarian. That this kind of dillemma would even arise for a utilitarian shows that the philosophy does not have a fundamental concern for trust and trustworthiness. This "morality" encourages behavior that creates distrust when morality should be geared towards creating and sustaining trust.

[AntiMatterWave]

It's kind f irrelevant since (at least to my knowledge) they aren't allowed to let him die anyway

[dbodow]

Big hidden variable: If it is obligatory to harvest the organs, then a patient considering seeking medical attention now faces a risk that his organs will be donated rather than receiving medical treatment. The expected reduction in welfare of those no longer seeking medical attention would surely outweigh the benefit to those who get the man's organs.

However, assuming there was no such consequence, they should obviously harvest the organs.

[wolfson109]

This particular scenario seems a little extreme

[sirbestnameever]

save the man 1 life is equal to a billion

[AntiMatterWave]

@sirbestnameever no it isn't, it's a billion times less equal. However I'd save him aswell, just for different reasons

[sirbestnameever]

@AntiMatterWave why is the larger amount of lives more valuable than 1? When the americans dropped the atomic boom on japan they killed thousands of innocents to save millions, could you tell those deformed broken people that there lives were forcefully destroyed because it would of saved more people.

[AntiMatterWave]

@sirbestnameever you're missing my point, I'm saying that while multiple lives is more valuable than 1 the circumstances can make that irrelevant. Like for example thousands of innocents dying to save millions, I think that if even one innocent dies then it's wrong, however if you had to choose, kill 1 person or kill a billion I'd think and hope you'd choose 1 person because then the overall loss is 999,999,999 less which I'd hope you'll agree, though it isn't good, is better

[sirbestnameever]

save the tramp

[Applesauce107]

Burn the man

[ferdo621]

utilitarians think about the consequences but don't respect the indivual and kantians don't care about the consequences just if the action in principle is right or wrong. Personally ,I don't like to use just one ethical theory or universalize everything because ethics is not like physics it's more like biology if I had to compare to science. I'm saying that it's not all black and white in real life. However, we must get ethics right or otherwise lots of people are harmed, killed or tortured.

[CavalloDiSpade]

(continued from below): here's a good analogy: while it may seem at an intuitive/surface/obvious level that the sun goes around the earth, this is not the case, and it is flaws in our intuitive coding that leads to this bad assumption

[CavalloDiSpade]

the problem here is that this scenario is kind of artificially constructed in order to strike us wrong. we must remember that our moral intuitions on these types of things are very approximate and definately do not constitute a reliable source of morality. yes i conclude that this scenario strikes me wrong, but it seems to me that this is the case due to the set up of this hypothetical scenario and inherent flaws and innaccuracies in my intuitive moral mechanisms.

[CelticKraut]

This is why so many people are scared to put organ donor on their licenses.

[Fas6pa]

For the greater good! I would never live like that. It's all about me

[cyxgun]

Wrong, the doctor would treat the homeless man. Hippocratic Oath... "First do no harm"

This is also the RIGHT course of action. It's right because allowing another to die is objectively immoral. Math isn't involved, the value of a life is such that it should never be purposefully taken away against someone's will. This is morally intuitive.

[n0fa1th]

Too answer just the question...They would harvest the organs. That is granted there are no hidden variables and they are a strict utilitarian. That said, the question has nothing to do with real life; there are always hidden variables and nobody's a strict utilitarian.

[nowayout001]

@n0fa1th I am sure that there are strict utilitarians in this world. And plus, I would choose to have the organs harvested if it were me, it's not like I am desperate to cling to life, so if I were the doctor, I choose what the strict ultilitarian would choose in THIS situation.

[dancthegr]

@n0fa1and no one is a strict absolutist either

[CadaverSplatter]

Exactly. This is why virtue ethics works best.

[daemonboi2]

A strict Utilitarian would harvest the organs, which seems really messed up to me.