Total Posts:17|Showing Posts:1-17
Conjoined Twins.
 Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM Posted: 7 years ago Consider the following: Two conjoined twins, called Tom and Mark, were born, say, twenty years ago. They both are able to understand the consequences of consenting to an action, and are capable of clear reasoning. Tom wants to be separated from the other, since he will die if they stay together. However, by separating, Mark will die.
Is it immoral for Tom to separate from Mark? #StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned |
 Posts: 11,060
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:28:03 PM Posted: 7 years ago What the f*ck is wrong with you dude. I hate these dilemmas
|
|
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:28:43 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:28:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote: Sorry? #StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned |
 Posts: 6,072
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:31:05 PM Posted: 7 years ago Not if Mark consents to Tom separating.
I've been waiting for my whole life to grow old, and now we never will, never will. - CHVRCHES, "Graffiti" |
 Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: It all depends, does Mark consent to the separation? |
|
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: Oh, I forgot to add that part. No, Mark does not consent. #StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned |
|
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:32:07 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:31:05 PM, DetectableNinja wrote: Crap dude, you just had to post 17 seconds before me haha |
|
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/6/2013 11:32:22 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: Then yes it would be immoral. |
 Posts: 1,518
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 12:05:20 AM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:32:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: And forcing Tom to stay joined (and thereby die) is moral? |
|
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 12:33:43 AM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/7/2013 12:05:20 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:32:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: Well, I guess more questions have to be asked to the OP. If they stay joined, and Tom dies, would Mark have to live with a dead Tom on him for the rest of his life? Could they separate after Tom dies, but not before? Or, would any separation cause Mark to die? |
|
Posts: 14,451
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 12:45:12 AM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/7/2013 12:33:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/7/2013 12:05:20 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:32:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: Any separation would cause Mark to die, I suppose. #StandWithBossy #TheMadmanWasUnbanned |
 Posts: 442
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 4:57:26 AM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:28:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote: What the f*ck is wrong with you dude. These are quite interesting. I think I'm going to make a post of many of these dilemmas now. Read and Vote Please! http://www.debate.org... |
|
Posts: 9,473
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 3:29:27 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/7/2013 12:45:12 AM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/7/2013 12:33:43 AM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/7/2013 12:05:20 AM, DakotaKrafick wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:32:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:57 PM, bossyburrito wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:31:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: Ok, then I guess Tom lives. He gets to live a normal life without a dead body attached to him all the time. Mark would have to live with a dead body attached to him. Since Tom would live a richer life than Mark if he survived, it is better if he lives. |
 Posts: 12,028
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 5:23:50 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:28:03 PM, AnDoctuir wrote: Ding.. Ding.. Ding!!! You got the Right Answer! "He who does not know how to put his will into things at least puts a meaning into them: that is, he believes there is a will in them already." Metaphysics: "The science.. which deals with the fundamental errors of mankind - but as if they were the fundamental truths." |
 Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 5:49:20 PM Posted: 7 years ago I hate questions like this because they're so pointless. These things don't happen in real life - as in there would be no reason for the physicians not to attempt to separate and keep both people alive - despite whatever dismal probabilities forewarn such an attempt. If you're simply trying to invoke and question our ethical standards by applying them to a difficult circumstance, the question is still pointless because there are no real ethical standards. We're reactionary and instinctive creatures - philosophical ethics unsuccessfully attempts to formalize these emotions. So if this were a real life case, no one would feel compelled to consult a standard, and judgments will be made entirely based on what feels right.
Lastly, if the purpose here is just to inquire what feels right, then we're operating outside the hypothetical world and formalized ethics, which means the unrealistic simplicity of your scenario inhibits any applicable feeling. So, long story short. I'm not answering your question because there's no point in doing so. "A stupid despot may constrain his slaves with iron chains; but a true politician binds them even more strongly with the chain of their own ideas" - Michel Foucault |
 Posts: 1,333
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/7/2013 7:16:15 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: If Tom does not consent, yes it is immoral. Do conjoined twins count as 1 person or 2? You would think 2 but is there any situations where they would be counted as one? |
 Posts: 4
Add as Friend Challenge to a Debate Send a Message |
8/29/2013 1:17:43 PM Posted: 7 years ago At 8/6/2013 11:23:29 PM, bossyburrito wrote: If Tom separates, Mark will die. If Mark stays, Tom will die, but since they can't separate, Mark will be living with dead Tom dragging beside him. If they wait, Tom will die anyway. Time is obviously of the essence, and it seems that the life of Tom is the only one that can truly be saved. So is it immoral for Tom to separate? Medically speaking, it seems that it is the best course of action for him to do so. Philosophically speaking, it depends on to what extent we believe we should sacrifice ourselves to the aid of another. If sacrificing ourselves helps someone in need, perhaps it is the right course of action. But if sacrificing ourselves makes little impact, are we sacrificing ourselves for a worthy cause? Whose job is it to decide if the cause is worthy enough? I believe it is moral for Tom to separate, because the death of Mark is inevitable, and he will be able to save a life if he does what is best for him. |
