https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Its a classic. 90% of people would kill 1 to save 5.

14 minutes ago, SOTL said:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

Its a classic. 90% of people would kill 1 to save 5.

It gets more tricky when you discuss doctors killing an innocent healthy person to harvest their organs which will save the lives of ten other people.

You can't let ten people die, can you?

9 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

It gets more tricky when you discuss doctors killing an innocent healthy person to harvest their organs which will save the lives of ten other people.

You can't let ten people die, can you?

Losing the trust in society that you can walk around without being abducted and harvested for organs is an additional cost though and arguably worse than saving nine additional lifes. That obviously implies that there is a threshold where it's not worse anymore. But then one criticism of the trolley problem applies again, that it's too far-fetched to have any actual relevance.

Killing five at once probably gets you bonus points, though.

M m m m multikill!

15 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Losing the trust in society that you can walk around without being abducted and harvested for organs is an additional cost though and arguably worse than saving nine additional lifes. That obviously implies that there is a threshold where it's not worse anymore. But then one criticism of the trolley problem applies again, that it's too far-fetched to have any actual relevance.

14 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Losing the trust in society that you can walk around without being abducted and harvested for organs is an additional cost though and arguably worse than saving nine additional lifes. That obviously implies that there is a threshold where it's not worse anymore. But then one criticism of the trolley problem applies again, that it's too far-fetched to have any actual relevance.

So how about voluntarily selling your organs, agreeing to the fatal procedure for a large cash sum?

This is entering sci-fi territory.

14 minutes ago, SOTL said:

Killing five at once probably gets you bonus points, though.

M m m m multikill!

M M M MEGA KILL!

3 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

So how about voluntarily selling your organs, agreeing to the fatal procedure for a large cash sum?

Wait, why is that problematic? The only reasons are coercion etc, but the act of selling your organs should be as problematic as well-informed and fully consented suicide. Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients for example is completely fine in my book.

All of them - including selling your organs - are suffer from the uncertainty about consent and how well informed that is. If we assume it to be perfect for a hypothetical, then the conclusion is not really a problem.

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Wait, why is that problematic? The only reasons are coercion etc, but the act of selling your organs should be as problematic as well-informed and fully consented suicide. Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients for example is completely fine in my book.

All of them - including selling your organs - are suffer from the uncertainty about consent and how well informed that is. If we assume it to be perfect for a hypothetical, then the conclusion is not really a problem.

Agreed, its only coercion/informed consent that's a problem there.

I wonder what happens to death row inmates organs? Hopefully they can choose to donate and the organs are still viable.

Wait, weren't we talking about a plastic space ship game???

4 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

Wait  , weren't we talking about a plastic space ship ga  me??? 

3 minutes ago, Scum4Life said:

Wait, weren't we talking about a plastic space ship game???

We're aiming for 10'000 posts/thread, so you have to think big!

13 minutes ago, GreenDragoon said:

Wait, why is that problematic? The only reasons are coercion etc, but the act of selling your organs should be as problematic as well-informed and fully consented suicide. Assisted suicide for terminally ill patients for example is completely fine in my book.

All of them - including selling your organs - are suffer from the uncertainty about consent and how well informed that is. If we assume it to be perfect for a hypothetical, then the conclusion is not really a problem.

I think the coercion issue is a big one.

Just now, Biophysical said:

I think the coercion issue is a big one.

Of course, but pretty much the only one, too? Meaning in a hypothetical we don't have to deal with it if we don't want to, and then the organ selling is ok?

Just now, GreenDragoon said:

Of course, but pretty much the only one, too? Meaning in a hypothetical we don't have to deal with it if we don't want to, and then the organ selling is ok?

There's a scary effect of putting a dollar value on a life. This exists in the background right now with insurance and health programs, but putting it front and center is something with ramifications I don't think I can estimate.

You place too much stock in yourself.

This is the single most self aggrandizing post I have ever seen.

**** double post

12 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

There's a scary effect of putting a dollar value on a life. This exists in the background right now with insurance and health programs, but putting it front and center is something with ramifications I don't think I can estimate.

I'm not as consistent in this regard as I'd like, actually. It's clear to me that e.g. if self driving cars lead to less deaths overall, then that's a good thing even if those inevitable malfunctions with deadly consequences will be extremely tragic. But in other questions I also hesitate to make the consistent, consequentialist decision. Exactly for the reason you mention.

22 minutes ago, Biophysical said:

There's a scary effect of putting a dollar value on a life. This exists in the background right now with insurance and health programs, but putting it front and center is something with ramifications I don't think I can estimate.

Life shouldn't have inherent value. That doesn't lead to good things.

23 hours ago, Cuz05 said:

It is well known that Kath is not a polite lady.

Yeah. She does some of her best work in the rear arc.

4 hours ago, Wiredin said:

- nazi cat

did I miss anything?

Aw. I thought nobody noticed. You're sweet.

2 hours ago, Scum4Life said:

It gets more tricky when you discuss doctors killing an innocent healthy person to harvest their organs which will save the lives of ten other people.

You can't let ten people die, can you?

Maybe. Why are they in organ failure? If it's from drugs, booze and syphilis, maybe those 10 won't be helped by or would only ruin a healthy set of organs.

Similarly, what if the 5 people were all homeless and the one employee had 2 kids and a wife?

What if not intervening leads to less suffering?

Wait.

What?

21 minutes ago, Cuz05 said:

Wait.

What?

The story of this thread, over and over again.

What is the jousting value of the trolley?
We need to start from that, guys!

7 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

What is the jousting value of the trolley?
We need to start from that, guys!

More than 5 random people. A lot more.

21 minutes ago, Azrapse said:

What is the jousting value of the trolley?
We need to start from that, guys!

In this case the jousting value for the trolley is very appropriate, it can only move and aim in one direction along the tracks!