| > If you were a doctor would you randomly kill healthy people with compatible organs to multiple patients? > > No. Why not? It's clearly a different approach than your original to turn the lever to kill a person in order to save 5 other people. So what changed? > researcher inflicting gruesome deaths to thousands of innocent healthy people to save millions later > > If it was guaranteed to save millions later, I'd think about it, if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts. So you're willing to turn the lever to save 5 people because it's seemingly obvious those 5 people will therefore be saved (reasonable to me) and you see no problem killing 1 person, to reference your previous post, not only you would do that, you would easily break the law to do that! However, when it comes to killing thousands, in order to save millions, so the "net gain" is now not 4 but millions, and it's no longer the same order of magnitude, but it's a difference of 3 orders of magnitude, even if we remove the "gruesome" and "healthy people" parts, you will only "think about it"???? :D > It all depends on the context It seems to me you don't care about the context when it comes to killing one person, but once the stakes are higher and involve thousands, you hesitate. So I too find it disturbing, not just that you don't want to treat people individually and just consider the outcome of the trolley dilemma as +4 gain, rather than killing to save, but also the automatic disregard to individual rights creates a portrait of a person very dangerous to the society. |