Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

Lak · 07-26-2005, 06:13 AM

An interesting point to note here is the implied distinction between "intentionally killing a man" and "letting a man die". It seems to me that people are more comfortable with the death of man 1 because he is dying anyway, thus passing the blame to whatever poisoned him. However, if it is in one's power to prevent his death, wouldn't not taking action be the same as killing him? You could rewrite the scenarios thusly:

Man 1: You can save him (with the antidote) or kill him (by doing nothing) and save 5.
Man 2: You can save him (by doing nothing) or kill him (intentional murder) and save 5.

Ignoring personal stance on 'killing' versus 'letting die' (which it makes sense to do in a general case), these two scenarios are completely equivalent. There or two identical outcomes in both and the doctor is totally capable of selecting either in both circumstances.
Thus, the actual difference between these scenarios is... (dat da da daa): the responsibility for the one death.
In case 1, if the man dies it is the fault of some random faceless party. In case 2, if the man dies then it is YOUR FAULT. Is there where the problem lies? I think so. I think that it must be, because its the only difference between these scenarios. I can hear the response "Yeah but I just couldn't live with the knowledge that I'd killed someone" which is perfectly fine, and I understand the reasoning well,
however... let me get old school on yo ass.

I could argue that the doctor that chooses NOT to kill Man 2 is actually afraid for himself, ie, scared of "living with the knowledge". Maybe someone who is truely "strong" will shoulder this burden for the sake of the five, thus sacrificing his own sanity alongside the life of the one man. Afterall, what it boils down to is killing FIVE people instead of one, for your own sake. One should instead kill one man, save five, and live with it no matter the pain. Isn't that the most selfless path? Isn't that what the bigger man would do?

Well, not according to federal law. But think about it.

07-26-2005, 06:13 AM	#18 (permalink)
Lak Insane Location: New Zealand	An interesting point to note here is the implied distinction between "intentionally killing a man" and "letting a man die". It seems to me that people are more comfortable with the death of man 1 because he is dying anyway, thus passing the blame to whatever poisoned him. However, if it is in one's power to prevent his death, wouldn't not taking action be the same as killing him? You could rewrite the scenarios thusly: Man 1: You can save him (with the antidote) or kill him (by doing nothing) and save 5. Man 2: You can save him (by doing nothing) or kill him (intentional murder) and save 5. Ignoring personal stance on 'killing' versus 'letting die' (which it makes sense to do in a general case), these two scenarios are completely equivalent. There or two identical outcomes in both and the doctor is totally capable of selecting either in both circumstances. Thus, the actual difference between these scenarios is... (dat da da daa): the responsibility for the one death. In case 1, if the man dies it is the fault of some random faceless party. In case 2, if the man dies then it is YOUR FAULT. Is there where the problem lies? I think so. I think that it must be, because its the only difference between these scenarios. I can hear the response "Yeah but I just couldn't live with the knowledge that I'd killed someone" which is perfectly fine, and I understand the reasoning well, however... let me get old school on yo ass. I could argue that the doctor that chooses NOT to kill Man 2 is actually afraid for himself, ie, scared of "living with the knowledge". Maybe someone who is truely "strong" will shoulder this burden for the sake of the five, thus sacrificing his own sanity alongside the life of the one man. Afterall, what it boils down to is killing FIVE people instead of one, for your own sake. One should instead kill one man, save five, and live with it no matter the pain. Isn't that the most selfless path? Isn't that what the bigger man would do? Well, not according to federal law. But think about it. __________________ ignorance really is bliss.