i want to work through the conversation article a little bit.
i mentioned that i don't like how the thing is framed, and i think that forms the basis between the difference in the formulations of the problems. these are being presented as equivalent issues, and they aren't.
when you kill somebody to take their organs, you have the opportunity to talk to them, you're not in a split-second choice like you are with the trolley. the article wants to make it seem like actively killing is less permissible than passively killing, but that's misinterpreting the context - if you can talk to the potential organ donor, then you should be able to yell at the loner to get off the fucking tracks. so, in the trolley problem somebody is going to die regardless, and you're supposed to be forced to choose a lesser evil. in the hospital problem, the potential organ donor is healthy, and you're not forced to choose one or the other.
so, diverting the train is permissible (i would argue that not diverting the train should even be treated as criminal negligence) because you can't stop the loss of life, and killing the potential organ donor is not because they only have a broken leg and are not in a situation of certain death.
now, what if the potential organ donor was on life support, perhaps brain dead? that's a more comparable scenario, and i would argue you should kill the organ donor, because the loss of life is unavoidable.
how about pushing the fat guy into the way of the train? that's like the organ donor problem - he's not near death. well, unless you want to argue that obesity statistically reduces life expectancy, and he's probably not going to live much longer, anyways.
what have our governments done here, though?
they've actually diverted the trolley from the path with one person to the path with five!
i mentioned that i don't like how the thing is framed, and i think that forms the basis between the difference in the formulations of the problems. these are being presented as equivalent issues, and they aren't.
when you kill somebody to take their organs, you have the opportunity to talk to them, you're not in a split-second choice like you are with the trolley. the article wants to make it seem like actively killing is less permissible than passively killing, but that's misinterpreting the context - if you can talk to the potential organ donor, then you should be able to yell at the loner to get off the fucking tracks. so, in the trolley problem somebody is going to die regardless, and you're supposed to be forced to choose a lesser evil. in the hospital problem, the potential organ donor is healthy, and you're not forced to choose one or the other.
so, diverting the train is permissible (i would argue that not diverting the train should even be treated as criminal negligence) because you can't stop the loss of life, and killing the potential organ donor is not because they only have a broken leg and are not in a situation of certain death.
now, what if the potential organ donor was on life support, perhaps brain dead? that's a more comparable scenario, and i would argue you should kill the organ donor, because the loss of life is unavoidable.
how about pushing the fat guy into the way of the train? that's like the organ donor problem - he's not near death. well, unless you want to argue that obesity statistically reduces life expectancy, and he's probably not going to live much longer, anyways.
what have our governments done here, though?
they've actually diverted the trolley from the path with one person to the path with five!