A Morality Experiment

[PsychoSarah]

There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

 

[Left]

I'd give it to the youngest and the most likely to live.

 

[Nithavela]

I would feel morally oblidged to slap around the person who brought budgeting concerns to the table and go from there.

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

First I'd ask for more details such as do they have health insurance? Why are their budget issues? Also what are the odds the heart takes to the body? Also how old are some of the kids? I know real heart transplant stuff factors in things like age, family, health...etc.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Because hes young and despite stealing has alot of life ahead of him and hope to not be a bad person.

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

Probably weren't expecting that choice were you. Young, good health, has two kids.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

This is hard for the last one. Young is good but housewife has diabetes means she may not have a long life, however she a spouse and 5 kids. The nurse only has one child, no real family and is likely to live longer, also shes younger. If I REALLY had to think and nitpick everything I'd likely choose the housewife simply because she has alot of family. Where as the nurse may be younger, but aside from a child theres no one else.

The others not chosen because the older guy has lived his life. The police officer, despite being younger than the housewife, doesn't have alot of family.

This reminds of this morality test having to do with a car and who lives/dies in various scenarios (its random every time what scenario you get).
Moral Machine

 

[PropheticTimes]

I would feel morally oblidged to slap around the person who brought budgeting concerns to the table and go from there.

this

 

[SPF]

male 1,2 and woman 1

 

[Ygrene Imref]

There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

Very interesting though experiment. I consider myself a philosopher (cynic,) and these type of questions excite me - for insight into others.

I assume we are disregarding classia theistic codes of living in exchange for human code(s) of living.

I would save two women, and one male on principle - since men cannot give birth, but can conceive multiple children in a short amount of time.

I would be inclined to choose a learned, moral person. However, gene probability suggests those traits may not be seen in linear chains of generations.

So, I would choose the former prostitute, turned nurse. She has a past of defiling her body, and now she has invaluable knowledge on medicine. This person would have real-life experience and perspective on some of the lowest moments a human can experience.

I would also pick the housewife with diabetes. Depending on what type she has, this isn't so much a problem. She has five kids, which means she is fertile and her offspring may be fertile. She has experience mutitasking, leading, cooking, cleaning, acting ("aww sweetie, mom''s fine...) she probably has a vast trivia knowledge, and insight on "younger" issues. That could prove invaluable in life for many people.

For this reason, my one maLe is the 16 year old trouble maker. He is young, and is a successful student - which suggests:

He is actually intelligent, and is likely underchallenged by LIFE
He bullied/coerced/manipulated others so that he would get his grades.

Either way, those are valuable talents.


(I think I made the mistake of assuming these three people are in an end of the world scenario. However, I would still choose the people I chose even if so - just amend/remove the arguments for procreation and fertility.)

There is a movie called After The Dark (2013) that deals with several scenarios almost identical in philosophy to the OP.

 

[Ana the Ist]

There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

The first three to apply for the hearts and be approved. I don't think occupation, current health, age, criminal history (basically any of the factors you noted) should be factors for consideration on the issue of who lives and who dies.

 

[essentialsaltes]

Some of these involve medical issues that may affect the operation or its long-term success. Setting that aside, I would lean toward the younger patients, hoping to gain the most 'benefit' in terms of longevity. M2, W2, M1. I think the toughest call is between M1,W3. Is W3 enjoying life? Is W3 likely to live a full life despite her injury?

Juvie doesn't concern me much, but if M1 was a convicted drug dealer or arsonist instead of a war hero, what would that mean?

 

[NothingIsImpossible]

The first three to apply for the hearts and be approved. I don't think occupation, current health, age, criminal history (basically any of the factors you noted) should be factors for consideration on the issue of who lives and who dies.

Thats a good point. First three who signed up get it first.

 

[Khalliqa]

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health. (healthy enough to get the most use of the heart... healthy enough to care for two more potentially productive members of society)


Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes. (healthy enough to care for five potentially productive members of society, young enough to sustain the heart.. and has a disease that is controllable and potentially can be eliminated)


Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health. (healthy enough to get the most use of the heart.. and for the longest time.. intelligent and possibly can contribute to society longer)

The others frankly will have a short life span and/or a be dependent on society and highly likely to have a painful rest of their short existences.

 

[quatona]

There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

I´m wondering why you picked those very bits of information about these people that you picked.

 

[Paradoxum]

There are 6 people in line to receive experimental artificial hearts. However, thanks to budgeting concerns, there are only 3 artificial hearts to give to these people. If a person does not get an artificial heart, they are likely to die within a year. Whom among these would you give an artificial heart? Why them and not the others?

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

It might be worth randomizing it, particularly for those not including Woman 2 and Male 3. I'll assume it can be random though.

Yes. There's no reason not to.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

Sure... diabetes isn't so bad.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

Yes, a minor theft crime should be considered.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

No... sadly probably less likely to do as much good, and perhaps worse for research.

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

No... older, less healthy, and less family (though the later perhaps shouldn't matter most of the time).

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

It would probably be random with this one and three other yes' above, but if I have to choose... no. Being retired and paraplegic probably means more cost to society... which seems harsh to say.

 

[Paradoxum]

I would feel morally oblidged to slap around the person who brought budgeting concerns to the table and go from there.

this

Why? If you didn't have a budget either you'd bankrupt the nation, or other worthwhile institutions wouldn't be funded.

 

[Paradoxum]

I would save two women, and one male on principle - since men cannot give birth, but can conceive multiple children in a short amount of time.

Why is that necessary? The nation and world doesn't need more people. More people could even be a negative.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Why is that necessary? The nation and world doesn't need more people. More people could even be a negative.

My philosophy.

Concerning life, I attribute 2/3 to the female, 1/3 to the male. It isn't equal in my opinion.

As far as which persons: the ones I chose, I feel the world needs more of these type of people - apocalypse or not.

 

[Paradoxum]

My philosophy.

Concerning life, I attribute 2/3 to the female, 1/3 to the male. It isn't equal in my opinion.

As far as which persons: the ones I chose, I feel the world needs more of these type of people - apocalypse or not.

You ignored my primary point; we don't need more people, so life producing ability isn't massively relevant. And, if people only matter as baby making machines, why does it matter who lives and dies, if they are no different than robots to you.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

You ignored my primary point; we don't need more people, so life producing ability isn't massively relevant. And, if people only matter as baby making machines, why does it matter who lives and dies, if they are no different than robots to you.

The question was about a life threatening situation for six people, and we could only choose three to save.

I am saying on those circumstances alone (life,) my philosophy aligns with 2/3 for female, 1/3 for male.

It was a piece of luck that the descriptions of the people made it easy for me to pick that ratio. I was basing my decision on the entirety of life; it can include, but isn't limited to procreation.

 

[PsychoSarah]

The first three to apply for the hearts and be approved. I don't think occupation, current health, age, criminal history (basically any of the factors you noted) should be factors for consideration on the issue of who lives and who dies.

Heath MUST be considered on who gets an artificial heart, and who doesn't, because how long an individual could enjoy the benefits of an artificial heart, and if they will even survive the surgery, are important. There are only so many artificial hearts made every year, and far more people in line to receive them. Furthermore, so many people apply for artificial hearts that dozens could send in their applications at the same time, and what ones happened to be processed first are essentially random. Generally, how long a person has been on the waiting list is taken into consideration, but it is not the deciding factor of who gets a new organ, real or artificial.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Now, for my personal judgement on the matter:

Male 1: A war veteran with two children that came out homosexual after his service. 35 years old, otherwise good health.

This individual gets a heart. He is young, thus will have many years to benefit from an artificial heart, relatively healthy besides his heart, and has two dependents. Not to mention his service to his country.

Woman 1: A housewife with five children, and a living spouse. 46 years old, and has diabetes.

A woman that does not work with a living spouse? People might be shocked that I would deny a person with five children an artificial heart, but thanks to her having a living spouse, these kids are going to still be cared for. Diabetes may seem insignificant, but one of the complications of artificial hearts is a matter of circulation, especially during exercise. This is a shared complication with diabetes. That is, her blood circulation would be horrific, making her a high stroke risk, and increasing her chances of needing amputations and going blind. Diabetes is often written off by people as a relatively unimportant health condition, but it has severe consequences to the circulatory system.

Male 2: A delinquent that has been in juvenile facilities for stealing, yet is a successful student. 16 years old, otherwise good health.

This individual is the hardest to assess for me personally. This is because he has both the potential to be a fine citizen, as well as a career criminal. However, given his young age and success as a student now, I am willing to give this person a chance, and an artificial heart.

Woman 2: A former prostitute with one child, and no other family. Currently works as a nurse. 27 years old, and a sufferer of chronic lymphocytic leukemia (not usually deadly, but weakens the immune system).

It's very sad for me to have to deny this individual an artificial heart, but thanks to their leukemia, they are more likely to die from complications of the surgery and infection. What makes it so sad is that they have a child that will lose their only family, and will likely end up in foster care. If she did not have this health health problem, she would have gotten an artificial heart.

Male 3: A retired heart surgeon, widowed with no children. Currently runs a charity organization for lung cancer victims and their families. 68, suffering from osteoporosis and high cholesterol.

Too old for the surgery, and in poor health. It is sad to see such a contributor to society go, but chances are, the charity organization will live on.

Woman 3: A former police officer that had to retire early due to being shot in the spine while on duty, is married. 38 years old, and is a paraplegic.

This individual does not get a heart. Oh, I didn't give out three artificial hearts in this group? I have no obligation to do so, I am free to save the last artificial heart for another person yet to be assessed, if I so choose. Paraplegics tend to have circulation problems, and it is my opinion that someone in better health should get the artificial heart.

You guys have basically played the role of being on a medical ethics board. Every day, people on the waiting list for organs both real and artificial are assessed by groups of people in the medical community to determine their place in line. Age, contributions to society, health, existence of dependents... these are all taken into consideration in real life just to attempt to narrow down recipients to a reasonable number. Yes, when getting a real heart, the donor heart has to be compatible with the recipient's body, but chances are, you'd never be the only person on the list that is a match, and a decision has to be made before the 4 hours that the donor heart can last outside a body are up. With artificial hearts, it is not much better, since they too are limited in production. Artificial hearts do not last long (usually can be expected to be about 5 years), so those that get them remain on recipient lists for real hearts in the hopes that they won't die before a heart is available for them.