A Morality Experiment

[Strivax]

I also would not like to make this decision on moralistic grounds. I would find a bag, and put into it three white balls, and three black balls. Then I would ask each patient to take a lucky dip, with those with the white balls getting the new hearts.

Best wishes, Strivax.

 

[Larniavc]

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.

Randomise it.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Randomise it.

Ok, in addressing responses such as this, there are practical reasons this is an unreasonable solution in real life. Mostly, the shear number of people that have failing organs and would need a transplant that would not survive the surgery. With such limited resources, you have to make them count for all that they worth, and keeping the process random will not accomplish that.

 

[Larniavc]

Ok, in addressing responses such as this, there are practical reasons this is an unreasonable solution in real life. Mostly, the shear number of people that have failing organs and would need a transplant that would not survive the surgery. With such limited resources, you have to make them count for all that they worth, and keeping the process random will not accomplish that.

Then develop an indices of worth and score each person. Highest wins.

 

[Ygrene Imref]

Then develop an indices of worth and score each person. Highest wins.

Exactly.

And, that depends on personal philosophy - unless we have an oath to follow that infringes on that philosophy.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Then develop an indices of worth and score each person. Highest wins.

What do you think I did? Problem is, what is worth what? Is what a person could do for society worth more or less than their physical health? This is when things get tricky.

 

[Larniavc]

What do you think I did? Problem is, what is worth what? Is what a person could do for society worth more or less than their physical health? This is when things get tricky.

Indeed.

That's why I said to randomise: if the choice of who gets the transplant is that close, why let the choser's bias play a part?

 

[PsychoSarah]

Indeed.

That's why I said to randomise: if the choice of who gets the transplant is that close, why let the choser's bias play a part?

Normally, it is groups of people and it is taken to a vote to prevent individual bias from winning out.

 

[bhsmte]

Then develop an indices of worth and score each person. Highest wins.

Not a bad idea, but people would argue all day long on how to value the scoring system.

 

[Larniavc]

Not a bad idea, but people would argue all day long on how to value the scoring system.

One could make several different scoring systems and randomly chose which system to use.

 

[Paradoxum]

Because female life IS weighted more

But it isn't. I don't weigh it more, so by definition, it isn't weighed more.

It sounds like your argument is that you believe it because a majority does. So, on the same logic, would believe it was good to gay people is a majority believed it?

- that is why it used to be a universal code to let women and children live while the men fight.

Used to be. Because believed various ignorant or immoral things in the past.

Or, women (and children) are the first hostages, for example, to go free.

And that's wrong. I suspect the primary reason there is the idea that women are weak and not a threat.

As I said, that is part of my personal philosophy when it comes to life: women ~ 2/3 and men ~1/3 "consideration."[/QUOTE]

But why? You pretty much only said you believe it because other people do. Are you a parrot who's not worth talking to because none of your ideas are your own?