End and the Means

[Sam]

The ends only justify the means if the means had multiple paths, and the chosen path ended with the greater of the ends. For example, a train is hurtling towards certain doom, and the only way of preventing disaster is to send it onto another set of tracks. However, there is someone caught on the tracks and nobody can get to them in time (nor can they free themselves).

So you have the choice of sacrificing the one to save the many, or sacrificing the many to save the one. In this circumstance I could positively say that I would choose to divert the train, killing the person on the tracks. I probably wouldn't like doing it, but the ends justify the means.

I'm sure I read something along these lines recently that argued this same point ... forgive I can't remember where I read it, but in essence it went along the lines of ...

If you where on a train hurtling towards a brick wall with 500 passengers on board and the only option was to divert on to parralel track with some one tied to them (i.e. Adrains Scenario) would you do it?

To which the answer usually came ... Yes

So then, If a patient in hospital is dying of a some disease which is completely uncurable and will result in death and their are 10 others in the same hospital with curable illnesses requiring transplants (for arguments sake, say they can all be sourced in the dying man) urgently, there are no other donors and no other hopes ... you would surely then by the same logic kill the dying man and harvest his organs?

A good question I thought,

Regards

Sam