the end justifies the means in this hypothetical
Debate Rounds (3)
five lives trumps one life who will end in two weeks. proportionalism.... the ends justify the means here, because of the overwhelming favorable interests involved v small negative interests.
Suppose you're a doctor and there's been a terrible construction accident, leaving five people in desperate need of vital organs. Suppose you've got a normal, relatively healthy, 75 year-old person in the room next door whom you could easily subdue with the hypothetical pull of a lever. By taking the life of the healthy person, you'd be able to distribute his organs in order to save the five.
Would this justifiable, according to your own reasoning of proportionalism? Since the need of five outweigh the need of a single person who has already lived a long amount of time, would it be fair to promptly end the life of the 75 year-old?
"Truth may be relative in some sense though in some sense it's not, but it's not arbitrary."
What you conclude here seems to contradict the very meaning of proportionalism. Proportionalist theories say that it is never right to go against a principle unless a proportionate reason would justify it.(1) However, how can you define what a proportionate reason is, if not arbitrarily? By definition, an arbitrary action is one based on or subject to individual judgment or preference.(2) If you take each case as their own, as you say you do, is that not arbitrary? By becoming an arbitrator, you subject your hypothetical subordinates to your own internal bias.
"...but personally I would say a healthy person with organs is worth even a hundred other people."
"In my scenario, the pros and cons were obvious, in your case not so much."
Yet again, you have two conflicting statements of reasoning. First you state that yes, my example would be acceptable according to your personal beliefs on proportionalism. Then, you say that the pros and cons of my example were not so obvious. If you say that a healthy person with organs is worth killing in order to save the others, then the pros must certainly be obvious? This leads me to believe that you have little regard for the means if the ends are good, even if you say you practice proportionalism.
Why the Means Doesn't Justify the Ends
The principle argument behind my reason as to why this specific situation would be wrong is the fact that you cannot disregard the individual liberty of the one in order to save the five. It would be different if the terminally ill person had consented to be killed to save the rest, however, your hypothetical situation says that you must make a conscious effort to divert the track and end the life of the cancer patient without their knowledge or consent. By removing consent, you effectively become a murderer - something which is considered immoral most societies in the world.
Although your hypothetical situation does not state as to how the five came to be tied to the tracks, one may assume that they 1) knew the risks of the railroad track, and 2) involved themselves in business which they may face harsh consequences. In this case, it seems as entirely immoral to murder and involve an outside figure in order to arbitrarily save the five when the five may have been the ones that caused the entire situation in the first place.
actually i never said your example would be permissible to me. i said it'd take at least a hundred people saved to even begin wtihinking about losing one healthy innocent person. i have much concern for the means
i appreciate your concen about the consent of the person killed. it makes me think you think it's inherently wrong to kill him, which i can respect. though i disagree with it completely.
i do though not like that you went on to speculate that the five on the track had a part in being there etc... people too often tend to find ways to want to jusitfy why they should die or whatever, do far fetch loops instead of just saying "the ends dont justify the eans. period". it's as if they know what they are saying is wrong, that it's okay to let them die, so they have to find a rationalization that probably isnt even true.
pk3 forfeited this round.
No votes have been placed for this debate.
You are not eligible to vote on this debate
This debate has been configured to only allow voters who meet the requirements set by the debaters. This debate either has an Elo score requirement or is to be voted on by a select panel of judges.