100 people in the word have discovered they have a fatal disease which can only be cured by blood extracted from a second group of 5 people. The manner in which the blood must be extracted will result in the group of 5 dying as a consequence of this incredibly invasive procedure. Three part question. 1. Is it moral for 5 people to give up their life for 100? 2. Is it moral for 5 people to be forced to give up their life for 100? If not. 3. Can we ever be justified in morally demanding the life of another human being to save ourselves?
1) Possibly - but depends on case-by-case circumstances 2) Not if the 5 are innocents. The only situation in which I can see this being even slightly justified, is if the 5 are guilty of serious crimes, beyond any shadow of doubt, which would otherwise result in a capital sentence. 3) Such a demand may be understandable under certain circumstances (e.g. plague carrier in a place where isolation isn't possible) but morally justifiable? Jury's still out on this one..........
It's just a variation on the old 'Is it right to forcefully harvest one person's organs to save the lives of a dozen people on the organ transplant list' dilemma.
So, are you asking whether or not you have an inalienable right to life? Or are you asking whether my inalienable right to life trumps yours, as in "everyone is equal, but AikiMac is more equal than Giacomo"? Or are you asking for the number N such that if there are N people on the left, and you on the right, we can kill you in favor of the group of N?
1. yes 2. no 3. no You must be kidding. What line would you draw to consider a crime serious enough to force a person to give his/her life (which is actually taking it) ? And even in this case the question is 'can you moraly justify to force someone to give his life for others', I don't think that the victim's earlier actions could possibly have any effects on that. I would sacrifice a guy that raped and murdered a boy of seven years to save a kindergarten class from a cruel death, but I know that it's morally wrong because I take a life in the first place.
Question 4. Even if we're not going to FORCE the 5 into dying. Do we still consider it immoral for the 5 to refuse giving up their lives?
Plus: This seems to be in the same vein as the short story: The Ones Who Walk Away From Omelas (You can read it here if you want: http://www.miafarrow.org/omelas.html ) 1. To be honest, I’m not sure I would say it is either moral or immoral; to say that it is would suggest it’s what they should or shouldn’t do. 2. I would have to say no, objectively speaking; I can’t say that the five in question are worth less than anyone else. 3. No, or at least, not per my position. 4. I wouldn’t consider it immoral. (Number three and four would also be my answer to: Is there EVER a point where we would consider it immoral? )
It would be morally praise worthy for the hundred to accept death in order to avoid harming the five, and it would doubtless be even better for the five to accept death to save the hundred. But for either group to demand a sacrifice from the other would be reprehensible, completely understandable, but still reprehensible.
its moral imo if those 5 do so by themselves and own choice.. I think a life is a life and one not more or less valuable than another. this is a generalization not saying that one person cant be more valuable to society, the world etc. than another.. I would sacrifice myself for certain people and things without a second thought. Random stranger i honestly dont know.
this is just a example and im not looking to get flamed Jesus sacrificed himself for all of the world , even those that dont believe in him.. Now would the whole world sacrifice itself for Him?
I dont know what religion you are. I dont wannA preach religion. Just used it as a example. and gave my opinion. so ya. cant really say much more. i think if i could save 25 people i would, but if i can show 25 how to save themselves and save the planet idd rather do that. D
Looks like I didn't state my case clearly enough, so I'll try again. Question 2) - moral to force 5 to give up their lives for 100? No, unless the 5 were already condemned to death for their misdeeds. In which case, it would be just plain wasteful to execute them and dispose of the remains without using them to save others. Of course, there is then the argument to be made that a prisoner's remains should be disposed of in accordance with the wishes of relatives, who might not want their kin to be used in such a way (religious objections to tampering with remains are prevalent in many faiths), but let's open one can of worms at a time...... If their crimes were committed in a place where the death penalty did not exist, obviously the special case would not apply and it would be totally immoral to force them to give up their lives. IMHO.
1. If it is their choice why not? 2. Never, nor would I ever ask someone to give up their life for me. 3. Morally demanding? Tricky, but my answer would be no, it would have to be voluntary. Thats why I'm against a mandatory military draft. The idea of someone dying because the government says you have to put your life on the line is pretty repugnant to me.