Also you could kill one person to save many with their organs & increase wellbeing more overall so that is morally better.
We would disagree because *as well as* wellbeing, we think every individual has the right to pursue own happiness unhindered.
-
-
the fact we don't don't this already tells you we've solved this one.
-
WEIRD societies have. Historically, no. In other parts of the world, no. Sacrifice to the group is also a human thing.
-
I am in favour of the rights of the individual but this is intuitive rather than logical. So its not objectively morally right.
-
I might well sacrifice my own life to save 6 others in another scenario. Either Sam Harris or Michael Shermer looks at this.
-
As a variation of the trolley experiment. Shows it to be a brain bug of ours. We'd be more logical in saving other things.
-
it's not a bug. 6 random strangers are unlikely to carry your same genes.
-
In the trolley dilemma, they are all strangers. Save one or five? Most wld save 5 in trolley case but 1 in organ case.Logical? No
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
right. But that is well-being.
-
But only one persons. And why support his right to be well over 6 people who could be in his stead?
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.