Total Posts:16|Showing Posts:1-16
Jump to topic:

What would you do?

Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 11:46:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

No. That's not justified to kill him, nor I would. (For reasoning; there can be many ways to explain it but easy way is to ask, haven't you watched "The Mist")
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Geogeer
Posts: 4,286
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 12:15:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 11:46:24 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

No. That's not justified to kill him, nor I would. (For reasoning; there can be many ways to explain it but easy way is to ask, haven't you watched "The Mist")

Sorry I haven't watched The Mist. I know what my answer is and how to justify it, but I'm seeing what other people say.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 12:28:00 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

First of all it depends which friend I am stuck in the tank with, secondly is it justified, again it depends what friend I am in the tank with.

But overall it isn't justified.
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.
Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live. I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:11:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.
There is a great difference in not giving a heart transplant to a 70 year old whatever (because a child has to get that on whatever reason), and in killing a person by a crowbar by hand. In a tank you can't oppress the other person to close his nose to stop the oxygen for him, just because you think for ABC reasons you've more rights to live.



In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:16:17 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 12:15:18 PM, Geogeer wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:46:24 AM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

No. That's not justified to kill him, nor I would. (For reasoning; there can be many ways to explain it but easy way is to ask, haven't you watched "The Mist")

Sorry I haven't watched The Mist. I know what my answer is and how to justify it, but I'm seeing what other people say.

It would be my interest to see your answer and justification. By the way, "The Mist" theme mainly explains how the abrupt decisions and giving up nature of human beings, result in a long-life regret because humans take decisions knowing only what they can manage, (considering to have limited resources), but by ignoring the fact that there is something that they don't know, outside of their thinking scope, they normally plays malfunctions in their life.

Same case may apply to your example, as no one is sure, may be they would get out of tank before night goes or may be one dies due to heart attack, leaving enough oxygen for other. There is also a possibility that after killing one person, other will also die because of low sugar level or whatever, leaving all the oxygen wasted. So based on justice, they should be provided equal-half of oxygen, they'll get half night to live (and may be more or less as real life circumstances are never constant).
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:17:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:11:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.

There is a great difference in not giving a heart transplant to a 70 year old whatever (because a child has to get that on whatever reason), and in killing a person by a crowbar by hand. In a tank you can't oppress the other person to close his nose to stop the oxygen for him, just because you think for ABC reasons you've more rights to live.

It seems you have more of an issue of actively killing than letting someone die. I don't make that distinction in this thought experiment.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 1:21:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:17:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:11:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.

There is a great difference in not giving a heart transplant to a 70 year old whatever (because a child has to get that on whatever reason), and in killing a person by a crowbar by hand. In a tank you can't oppress the other person to close his nose to stop the oxygen for him, just because you think for ABC reasons you've more rights to live.

It seems you have more of an issue of actively killing than letting someone die. I don't make that distinction in this thought experiment.
You've mistaken the word of "letting someone die". If we have only 1 heart transplant facility and 2 patients, we're not personally "letting" one die. It would be so if we would have 2 transplanting facilities available.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 5:00:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 1:21:01 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:17:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:11:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.

There is a great difference in not giving a heart transplant to a 70 year old whatever (because a child has to get that on whatever reason), and in killing a person by a crowbar by hand. In a tank you can't oppress the other person to close his nose to stop the oxygen for him, just because you think for ABC reasons you've more rights to live.

It seems you have more of an issue of actively killing than letting someone die. I don't make that distinction in this thought experiment.
You've mistaken the word of "letting someone die". If we have only 1 heart transplant facility and 2 patients, we're not personally "letting" one die. It would be so if we would have 2 transplanting facilities available.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.

I really don't see your point, really.

In this thought experiment either 1 or 2 people will die. For just 1 person to die one must kill the other.

On the face of it, it's an easy choice. Regardless of what else I said about deciding who should die and in what manner it should be performed. If 2 people die, we will have 2 grieving families and twice the impact on the well being of others including the deceased.

So all things equal, that's my position. I don't see how leaving someone to die knowing that an alternative action would have saved then is any different to killing them. Of course in reality it's more complicated because emotions trauma and other factors muddy the waters. For the purposes of this thought experiment, it's the correct choice to have one be killed.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
zmikecuber
Posts: 4,093
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/25/2014 8:26:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

No, you're not justified in killing him. I don't know what I would do though. I hope I wouldn't.
"Delete your fvcking sig" -1hard

"primal man had the habit, when he came into contact with fire, of satisfying the infantile desire connected with it, by putting it out with a stream of his urine... Putting out the fire by micturating was therefore a kind of sexual act with a male, an enjoyment of sexual potency in a homosexual competition."
Dazz
Posts: 1,163
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 12:14:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 2/25/2014 5:00:45 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:21:01 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:17:49 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:11:45 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 1:01:15 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:45:12 PM, Dazz wrote:
At 2/25/2014 12:09:27 PM, Sswdwm wrote:
At 2/25/2014 11:16:32 AM, Geogeer wrote:
Assume that you and your friend get accidentally locked in an airtight tank overnight. There is not enough oxygen for both of you to survive the night until someone opens it in the morning. However, there is enough for one of you.

Your have a crowbar and your friend is sleeping. Are you justified in killing him or not? Would you?

You raise two

1.) What would you do
2.) Are you justified in killing him or not

The answer to number 1 is I don't know.

Answer to number 2 is also not sure. It is justified to kill them, or have them kill themselves, but the situation you painted is not black and white.

The brute rational thing to do would be to weigh up the consequences of each of you dying, the family ties and social impact of each person. The person with the greatest of these should be allowed to survive.

Sorry but I don't see how that is justified. Having no family or less social impact doesn't mean to lose the "right" to live.

If they are both going to die anyway then it makes sense that the death that would the least least negative effect in the well being of those who will be affected should be preferred. We don't judge the right to life equally regardless of the circumstances, which is why we have different rights for convicts, feutus and the terminally ill to name a few.

I think justification is justice. And justice is to protect the rights. Both persons of example have "equal" rights to live. Isn't it so? It's too much false to decide on this scale; who should be allowed and who shouldn't.

We already do, and we have to. The naive equal treatment for rights for all is simply foolish. Who should get a life saving heart transplant, a 70 year old serial rapist or a 5 year old child? Should we just flip a coin? It isn't as if this is just hypothetical either as there are thousands on the organ waiting list. We have to make these tough choices, and there is usually a right answer although it may not be obvious.

There is a great difference in not giving a heart transplant to a 70 year old whatever (because a child has to get that on whatever reason), and in killing a person by a crowbar by hand. In a tank you can't oppress the other person to close his nose to stop the oxygen for him, just because you think for ABC reasons you've more rights to live.

It seems you have more of an issue of actively killing than letting someone die. I don't make that distinction in this thought experiment.
You've mistaken the word of "letting someone die". If we have only 1 heart transplant facility and 2 patients, we're not personally "letting" one die. It would be so if we would have 2 transplanting facilities available.


In practice though, it's unlikely to be possible to do that when you're in the middle of the situation yourself, and it's hardly likely after debate that one of you will commit suicide via crowbar (eurgh!).

So it may well be justified in killing them, but only in the most humane/painless way possible at the time, piercing the jugular is probably a good way to go about that.

I really don't see your point, really.
My point is same as the query is; what is the "justification" to "kill" your friend, in that thought process.

In this thought experiment either 1 or 2 people will die. For just 1 person to die one must kill the other.
This is situation, not a justification to actually react in similar way i.e to kill one.

On the face of it, it's an easy choice. Regardless of what else I said about deciding who should die and in what manner it should be performed.
How in the given example, it's an easy choice, when question is to kill your sleeping friend. Your choice is to either kill or to not kill your friend. You chose to kill "one" of two. Why didn't you think about choosing a third option available, just awake your friend and tell the story and ask him to kill you?

Okay if you say I'll do the same, for your friend it's still not justified to kill you by wrongly taking it as utilitarianism. Because utilitarianism deals with greater benefit that maximizes happiness and reduce suffering (http://en.wikipedia.org...). But no one can decide that saving the life that has more social association or obligation or whatever, will produce greater sum of utility in result. The grief that you're trying to limiting to just one small family of died one is based upon human psychic and emotion, those are highly unpredictable and unstable. Probably this will spread its impact on other family too, children don't like their father as a killer. Teach them utilitarianism and live alone, then redefine utilitarianism again because that is no more giving you greater benefits. So utility has multiple meanings and perspectives. Also read the criticism here (http://en.wikipedia.org...) my point deals with predicting the consequences and ignoring justice by aggregating utility (as A person's satisfaction is not part of any greater satisfaction.).

If 2 people die, we will have 2 grieving families and twice the impact on the well being of others including the deceased.
Okay


So all things equal, that's my position. I don't see how leaving someone to die knowing that an alternative action would have saved then is any different to killing them. Of course in reality it's more complicated because emotions trauma and other factors muddy the waters. For the purposes of this thought experiment, it's the correct choice to have one be killed.
Can be correct in one's perspective, but not justified.
Remove the "I want", remainder is the "peace". ~Al-Ghazali~
"This time will also pass", a dose to cure both; the excitement & the grievance. ~Ayaz~
Sswdwm
Posts: 1,398
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 5:22:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
I understand what you mean by justice, and reading about utilitarianism was quite interesting, although I do not that view.

The criticism is it ignores justice, which is fair enough, however justice is a social construct that works to maximize the general well being of the population - via. limiting fear and pervasiveness of 'unfair' actions taken which the remainder of the population would find objectionable.

Justice isn't something a person is automatically entitled to, and by this understanding unjust actions may well be the correct one. The example on the utilitarianism page on Wikipedia - if killing an innocent will lead to the survival of a large population, then it may well be a correct action. Where it gets complicated is that the population will know an unjust action was deliberately, and authoritatively taken for their survival - and this is going to result in fear/unrest amongst the remainder when they realize they are not automatically entitled to their lives.

In the thought experiment you have given, it's a similar situation. It's clearly preferable if just 1 dies, but you would have to look at the balance of the likely consequences to see if it really is a correct action or not.
Resolved: the Zombie Apocalypse Will Happen
http://www.debate.org...

The most basic living cell was Intelligently Designed:
http://www.debate.org...

God most likely exists:
http://www.debate.org...
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/26/2014 5:30:29 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Well, this depends on a lot of things. For one, who is my friend? If he is the next Einstein, then I would probably kill myself, as he is more useful on Earth than me. Also, will the police know I did it? Will I get caught? I would rather die than spend the rest of my life in jail, so there would be no reason to kill him. However, if I wouldn't get caught, and someone has to die in order for ANY one to survive, then based on pure numbers, why not?