(January 24, 2018 at 11:22 am)vulcanlogician Wrote: The question here is: are you a consistent consequentialist? If you saved five lives at the cost of one in the trolley example, did you do so in the doctor example? If there is inconsistency, how do you justify it? Keep in mind, both examples are essentially the same: you can either ACT and save five lives (at the cost of one) or NOT ACT and let five people die. I'd like to hear people's reasoning for deciding differently or remaining consistent concerning both thought experiments.
(Even if you don't reply, please answer the attached poll. I'd like to get some raw numbers. I set it up to be anonymous.)
Personally, I think this is not just a numbers game in the organ scenario. In our society we place an extraordinary value on our right to our own body and have elaborate systems to defend our bodies. The thought that, in a predatory fashion, our society could condone the sacrifice of our organs for the greater good, scares us. I wouldn't feel safe going to the doctor if this were an option! Thus, we structure and work tirelessly to achieve a world in which our bodies are safe.
A train running over people - that's a freak accident. Knowing that in that scenario I might be sacrificed doesn't bother me one bit. However, if doctors, some of the most trusted people in our society behave that way, that would upset our entire world, concept of individualism and the notion of a right to our bodies.
Excellent moral question, though. I'm not sure if this is the answer but it's definitely a distinction in my mind when I look at it from a more sociological perspective.
