Posted by alexandra_k on February 28, 2005, at 19:32:46
In reply to Re: (2) One or Six???, posted by rainbowbrite on February 28, 2005, at 18:28:59
Both of the cases are typically considered to be 'moral dilemma's'. A moral dilemma is supposed to be a situation where you do the wrong thing either way.
But others argue that clearly one of the options is the *right* thing to do GIVEN THE SITUATION / CONTEXT whereas the other is *wrong*.
> i missed this....it is differnet because the doctor is playing god if he chooses to not save the man. the chioces of life and death are differnt. you can save a person but you can not KILL.The doctor can choose (through inaction - failing to operate on the one) to let him die. This is a 'passive move'. He simply allows him to die by not interveaning.
The train conductor, on the other hand can choose to let the train run its course (by failing to divert the course of the train). This is a 'passive move'. He simply allows 6 people to die by not interveaning.
If the difference between the cases is that 'letting die' is acceptable while 'actively killing' is not then it would seem that the doctor should allow the one to die and the train conductor should allow the train to kill 6.
Does this seem correct, though???
Wouldn't we prefer it to be the other way around??That was a good response, though :-)
A lot of people think there is a clear difference between 'active' and 'passive' euthenasia, for example. The former being unacceptable (not allowed to give lethal injections) and the latter being acceptable (do not resussatate order).These are hard cases. Both individually and taken together. But I find it a challenge to think about them...
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464571
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464598.html