A philosopher friend of mine writes me, the oracle, to divine the answer to the following vexing philosophical conundrums.
my responses in bold.
1. Must choose between saving a janitor and a surgeon. Permissible to save the surgeon since he's very likely to do more good in the world (for persons in his life that are currently as yet unidentified)? Or should be flip a coin (or give the two equal chances in some less crass way)?
well, does the janitor have a good sense of humor, a large penis? I'm trying to take a panoramic view here. spit-balling if you will. in the movies, when faced between shooting human and animal, we are told to shoot the animal. blue collar worker = animal. shoot janitor in back of head. qed.
no, but in all seriousness, that's a really interesting question. my first instinct is to ask for more information. but simply going off these bare facts, i guess i'd have to say decide in some way that allows for equal odds for each. although i see the allure of offing the janitor in favor of the surgeon, and it's hard to resist.
if this is for your [redacted by official gov't Tmen] application, i can ask [my significant other] to break in to the phil office to get the answer key. you need only ask.
2. We have a certain amount of a scarce drug that each of three people, A, B, and C, urgently needs to live. A and B are quite close to us, but C is far away. Imagine also that there is enough of the drug to save A and C or B and C, but not A and B. (Perhaps differing physiologies make it the case that the amount remaining after saving A would not leave enough to save B, and vice versa, but would be enough to save C.) Now, if we give the drug to B, who is a fast runner, he can get the remaining effective amount to C before he dies. But if we give the drug to A, she will not reach C in time, and both B and C will die. Is it permissible to view the fact that B but not A could save C a good and conclusive reason to save B rather than A?
2. We have a certain amount of a scarce drug that each of three people, A, B, and C, urgently needs to live. A and B are quite close to us, but C is far away. Imagine also that there is enough of the drug to save A and C or B and C, but not A and B. (Perhaps differing physiologies make it the case that the amount remaining after saving A would not leave enough to save B, and vice versa, but would be enough to save C.) Now, if we give the drug to B, who is a fast runner, he can get the remaining effective amount to C before he dies. But if we give the drug to A, she will not reach C in time, and both B and C will die. Is it permissible to view the fact that B but not A could save C a good and conclusive reason to save B rather than A?
Yes--a "good" reason, but maybe not "conclusive." "Do I contradict myself? Very well, then I contradict myself; I am large, I contain multitudes." Walt Whitman.
3. Combo of 1 and 2: Choose between A, a normal person, and B, a surgeon, who is the only one who could save C (who needs a surgeon). Permissible to save B? Or should we give A and B equal chances.
3. Combo of 1 and 2: Choose between A, a normal person, and B, a surgeon, who is the only one who could save C (who needs a surgeon). Permissible to save B? Or should we give A and B equal chances.
having been a janitor but never having been a surgeon, my sympathies are with "normal person." but here, where the beneficiary of saving B is identified, it makes me lean toward saving B, surgeon, so he/she can save C. Plus, A, the "normal person," probably can't run fast enough because, like most "normal persons," he/she is overweight and his/her corpulent little leggies aren't as deft as they were when he/she played safety for the high school JV team. so in a way, A's death can be ruled a suicide.
If you choose to accept this challenge, all I need are your intuitions about what it's permissible to do. Don't feel you need to go into explanations as to why you choose as you do.
No comments:
Post a Comment