Organ donation - Thought Experiment

[MrMonkey23]

Firstly when an earlier post talked about the nhs not killing people, I assume they forgot about the likes of harold shipman

However - I have the choice over my life, as do everyone else.  Therefore, we do end up with I cannot choose to kill someone to save myself, I can however choose to give my life for another (or 3 others)

[Nalaar]

The trap I guess is that unless you sacrifice your life to save any number more than 1, it can be argued that you can non longer say "all human lives are born equal"

I don't think that's a trap, I think it's quite explicitly the question that's being asked in the scenario - 'Is your life worth more than 3 others'.

[Javert]

In a sense you can only think about something when you have time to think about it. I don't see how that can me mitigated for.



Perhaps.



and do you think you make a better or worse decision when you have time to think?



Yes it does. How is that a trap?



I'm not interested in judging you, after all you are the one setting the bar, do you think you put the bar too high?

The trap I guess is that unless you sacrifice your life to save any number more than 1, it can be argued that you can non longer say "all human lives are born equal".



The difference though is that it's by bad luck that those other people are ill, and not (as far as I know) by some act of prior discrimination or action on my part.  



If I was ill and needed a liver, I wouldn't expect someone else to sacrifice their life to save mine, so based on that, I guess I think it's unfair of them to expect me to sacrifice mine to save them.



There could be all kinds of different levels though - for example if I was already terminally ill and they were children, maybe that would make a difference.  If I was told my family would be given 10 million pounds when I sacrifice myself, maybe that would make a difference.  Not sure.

[Nalaar]

Not sure it does exactly because in your scenario, I'm being asked the question in a kind of matter of fact way and given time to think about it.

In a sense you can only think about something when you have time to think about it. I don't see how that can me mitigated for.

If you give the answer yes I would die to save 3 people, don't you open the way up for a kind of "Logan's Run" world in which, for example, the old are asked to be vaporised at the age of 70 or whatever in order to save the world for the young.

Perhaps.

To me there is an un-explainable difference between me making an intellectual decision to pop off the the hospital and sacrifice my life to save two others, versus an situation where I'm faced with a crisis life or death decision.

and do you think you make a better or worse decision when you have time to think?

It also feels like a bit of a trap to then calculate how many lives it would take for me to sacrifice mine.  If I said a million, that then implies that I think my personal life is worth more than 999999 other lives.

Yes it does. How is that a trap?

I think it would be a bit unfair to make moral judgements against someone who said no I will not sacrifice, because I suspect that hardly anybody would agree to that, so it seems to be setting the bar unfeasibly high.

I'm not interested in judging you, after all you are the one setting the bar, do you think you put the bar too high?

[Borg Refinery]

Utilitarianism is feckin round the swerve, don't be surprised that it makes no sense.  :-P

[Javert]

I mean, it has to be you specifically, because you are the arbitrator of your morality, and that's what the scenario is testing.



These kinds of questions can apply in many real world scenarios that need answers, from 'who gets the board the lifeboats' to 'what action should an AI car driver take'

Not sure it does exactly because in your scenario, I'm being asked the question in a kind of matter of fact way and given time to think about it.  



If you give the answer yes I would die to save 3 people, don't you open the way up for a kind of "Logan's Run" world in which, for example, the old are asked to be vaporised at the age of 70 or whatever in order to save the world for the young.



To me there is an un-explainable difference between me making an intellectual decision to pop off the the hospital and sacrifice my life to save two others, versus an situation where I'm faced with a crisis life or death decision.



This is a direct challenge to the human instinct for self preservation in all normal circumstances - as such, maybe we should also ask about the morality of the people who are asking me to make that sacrifice.



It also feels like a bit of a trap to then calculate how many lives it would take for me to sacrifice mine.  If I said a million, that then implies that I think my personal life is worth more than 999999 other lives.



I think it would be a bit unfair to make moral judgements against someone who said no I will not sacrifice, because I suspect that hardly anybody would agree to that, so it seems to be setting the bar unfeasibly high.

[Nalaar]

I'm not sure the general principle is pointless, but it's more that the scenarios is difficult to comprehend without wondering why it's me specifically being asked to die, and the person who walked in just before me or just behind me.



However, frankly I suspect that I wouldn't agree to this no matter how many people would be saved.  Why?  Not sure, but it doesn't seem like the sort of question that would ever be asked in reality.

I mean, it has to be you specifically, because you are the arbitrator of your morality, and that's what the scenario is testing.



These kinds of questions can apply in many real world scenarios that need answers, from 'who gets the board the lifeboats' to 'what action should an AI car driver take'

[Javert]

Was just replying to your answer.

I don't think the exercise is pointless, if you do fair enough.

I'm not sure the general principle is pointless, but it's more that the scenarios is difficult to comprehend without wondering why it's me specifically being asked to die, and the person who walked in just before me or just behind me.



However, frankly I suspect that I wouldn't agree to this no matter how many people would be saved.  Why?  Not sure, but it doesn't seem like the sort of question that would ever be asked in reality.

[Nalaar]

Not without a lot more information.  With what you've given so far, I would assume that the other people would then be told they have to die to save someone else the next day, which would make the whole thing pointless.  i.e. why is it me in particular that's being asked to do this?

Was just replying to your answer.

I don't think the exercise is pointless, if you do fair enough.

[Javert]

Is there a number of people that you think would convince you, if not three, thirty? etc.

Not without a lot more information.  With what you've given so far, I would assume that the other people would then be told they have to die to save someone else the next day, which would make the whole thing pointless.  i.e. why is it me in particular that's being asked to do this?

[johnofgwent]

As a scientist you should know better.

As a scientist turned engineer, of course I do.



As a scientist, I hold the highest regard for Maxwell driving a coach and horses through the second law of thermodynamics with his little demon and his door ...



And it is into this class of absurdity that the engineer I became casts such 'experiments'.

[Nalaar]

Yes but this is a thought experiment. Thought experiments have no place in the real world, because if they did, theyd be real experiments.

As a scientist you should know better. Natural philosophical thought experiments have been a backbone of scientific advancement.



To take one example - Galileo's overturning of the Aristotelian theory of mass/gravity can be completely and succinctly carried out by thought experiment, and Indeed is something we only were able to complete a 'real world experiment' on when we got to the moon.

[Streetwalker]

Didn't China recently execute a scientist for putting a thought experiment into reality?

I think so

[papasmurf]

Yes but this is a thought experiment. Thought experiments have no place in the real world, because if they did, theyd be real experiments.

Didn't China recently execute a scientist for putting a thought experiment into reality?

[johnofgwent]

In this case its a big shout of take cover and its every man for himself .



As I said previously nobody is going to kill themselves ,even the guy who dives on a grenade (has this ever actually happened outside the action movies?)  is hoping the thing doesn't go off

Yes but this is a thought experiment. Thought experiments have no place in the real world, because if they did, theyd be real experiments.