Immiment Death Question

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

It depends on what stage of his life he was at. He was violently anti-semetic and racist well before he took power. At any point in time when he held the intention as well as the reasonable ability to murder I think he could be killed. I.E., we have a period between the mid twenties and mid 30's when he could have been killed before the Holocaust, WWII, etc.

However, if I knew he was going to become that person well beforehand, I could just as easily and more morally take other actions to prevent him from ending up that way. I could kidnap him and smuggle him out of germany, or befriend him in his teens when he was an artist and change his outlook by conversation. Or I could gouge his eyes out and break all his limbs. That would work in our favor, and it's more moral than murder.

[ledwix]

Re: Immiment Death Question

About the "would you reject medicine?" comment and one of the above posts:

This medicine comment is most certainly relevant. Medicine is an artifical way to preserve your life. Someone said that we have "no right to decide who dies and who doesn't." If you would not want to interfere with who dies and who doesn't, why give medicine, why perform surgery, why brush your teeth, if all of it is interference? Would you save your grandfather by paying for his surgery, extending his life 20 years, or just let him die as he is "supposed to?"

Saving lives is something we should all be obligated to do under reasonable circumstances such as this.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

But that's precisely the problem. These aren't reasonable circumstances. Murdering an innocent man is not reasonable.

Medicine, as I've said before, has no human cost. Now, let's say we introduce a human cost. Let's say we have the potential to save countless human lives. Millions, maybe even billions. A new cancer drug has been devised. The only problem is that we're not sure if it works on humans yet. In tests in lab rats it destroys the cancer but when tested in monkeys it worsens it so much the monkeys die within hours.

Now, do we test this drug on unwilling humans if we can't find any willing ones simply because we might possibly save lives? No, this is an unethical practice, regardless of the intended consequence.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Immiment Death Question

They would not be unwilling, though. If someone is about to die, they probably would not mind signing up for the clinical test.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Right, in which case it would be fine because they would be willing. Same thing as if the one guy on the other track was screaming at you to switch the track.

[MixMasterLar]

Re: Immiment Death Question

How would you know what God thinks?

I reach on the other side of my bed and read the Bible. No, im not saying that Im a professor or a peacher, but I have a basic understanding what God wants a expects from us.

I'm not sure "allow them to die" is the proper phrasing.

So how would you say it?

Remember in the movie Master and Commander were The ship's mass breaks in a storm and it's tipping the ship over? The Captain could cut the ropes and the crew would be save, but if he did that then the one man on the mass in the water would die. In your eyes, what would you do?

And for those of you who said "I wouldnt it might be a black man and I go to jail", I would go to jail for somthing right.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I reach on the other side of my bed and read the Bible. No, im not saying that Im a professor or a peacher, but I have a basic understanding what God wants a expects from us.

Um. You do realize that the Bible is probably the most studied, most interpreted book in the entire world, don't you? Even this basic claim is somewhat arrogant. If you really want to, give me a verse or two to support your claim and we'll get into it from there.

Remember in the movie Master and Commander were The ship's mass breaks in a storm and it's tipping the ship over? The Captain could cut the ropes and the crew would be save, but if he did that then the one man on the mass in the water would die. In your eyes, what would you do?

I expect that Navy men or men in any form of Military service expect and condone that form of sacrifice. I don't think it's comparable. Incidentally, my inability to think and act in the way you're describing is just one of a number of reasons I'm not in the military. The whole manner in which war is driven is by weighing human life.

And for those of you who said "I wouldnt it might be a black man and I go to jail", I would go to jail for somthing right.

If you could prove it was something right.

[sherbtail]

Re: Immiment Death Question

@ everyone who would pull the lever

Someone laid out a situation earlier when you had to be proactive to save the five people

As in, the five people are in a runaway train about to go off a cliff, and the only chance they have of being saved is if you push this obese man in front of the train.

Would you save the five people by killing the one?

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would not pull the lever. If fate brought them to that conclusion that they will be crushed by a random falling metal ball then thats thier fate. You can't choose who death takes. Its not right.

[jewpinthethird]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would not pull the lever. If fate brought them to that conclusion that they will be crushed by a random falling metal ball then thats thier fate. You can't choose who death takes. Its not right.

No offense, but "fate" is the worst argument ever. For one, it can neither be proven or disproved. As someone said earlier, what if it is your fate to save the five and sacrifice the one? Besides, fate shouldn't matter anyway, as if fate does exist, then wouldn't any action you take also be determined by fate and therefore making the argument null?

Also, what's this "you can't choose who death takes"? It's nonsense. Death isn't an entity that floats around from person to person taking their souls with it's scythe. Sorry, but that concept of death died with the rise of monotheism and was later abolished with increased knowledge human anatomy.

[Devilution]

Re: Immiment Death Question

hellll no

[Lamoc]

Re: Immiment Death Question

No offense, but "fate" is the worst argument ever. For one, it can neither be proven or disproved. As someone said earlier, what if it is your fate to save the five and sacrifice the one? Besides, fate shouldn't matter anyway, as if fate does exist, then wouldn't any action you take also be determined by fate and therefore making the argument null?

Also, what's this "you can't choose who death takes"? It's nonsense. Death isn't an entity that floats around from person to person taking their souls with it's scythe. Sorry, but that concept of death died with the rise of monotheism and was later abolished with increased knowledge human anatomy.

You just blew what I said way out of proportion. You shouldn't do anything. Let the 5 people die.

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I would pull the lever, then run over and push the one person out of the way. I would do that because I would not willingly sit and watch ANYONE die, wether I know them or not.

[RandomPscho]

Re: Immiment Death Question

You cannot save them all, that is the point of the question. Please people, stop adding in circumstances and what you would do. There are two and only two choices; you must pick one, not make up a third.

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Sorry, I was thinking about what I would have tried doing. I really wouldn't know what to do at that point.... Having either one person die, or a whole group? That's just hard.... It isn't my choice who lives or dies.