RE: "The first person to live to [200, 300, 500, 1000] has already been born"
December 14, 2015 at 6:43 pm
(This post was last modified: December 14, 2015 at 6:49 pm by Excited Penguin.
Edit Reason: replacement of the word 'choice' with decision, where warranted, in the fourth sentence of the first paragraph.
)
Ok, let's say you give him that medication and he lives. Now let's take that to its conclusion. You realise all three of us will die, as a result of that action? And you're the one who made that decision, being how you have both the knife and the medicine, and only you know about it.
And somehow you deem that moral because in the process you gave a dying man his medication, just so he can die a little bit later of starvation instead. The only difference between the two scenarios is the number of preventable deaths that occur. In case you choose the medication, you prevent no deaths. If you choose to wait and take out the knife, you prevent two deaths.
So you think 0 lives is better than two lives.
And somehow you deem that moral because in the process you gave a dying man his medication, just so he can die a little bit later of starvation instead. The only difference between the two scenarios is the number of preventable deaths that occur. In case you choose the medication, you prevent no deaths. If you choose to wait and take out the knife, you prevent two deaths.
So you think 0 lives is better than two lives.
