Cookie Thread Act 3: The Cookie Strikes Back

General
#28824

Too divisive

#28825

Same rule as politics

#28826

YOU CAN’T TRICK ME THIS IS THE TROLLEY PROBLEM

1 Like
#28827

… but like its not…

1 Like
#28828

what’s the answer may!

1 Like
#28829

just saying religion exists shouldnt be divisive in any world

1 Like
#28830

litten do you know what judith thomson’s big thing is

#28831

nope!

1 Like
#28832

this might get political

#28833

As you can tell we’ve discussed politics several times and the same goes for religion
But I think it means “don’t debate them”

#28834

No

2 Likes
#28835

It’s not strictly enforced, you can say religion exists, you can have off-hand conversations about it, but an in-depth philosophy quiz about it might get into borderline issues

2 Likes
#28836

My god

#28837

Basically it’s a rule that’s only enforced when people are arguing

2 Likes
#28838

Blimey, that’s certainly a brave response (or something!). Slightly disturbing to note that it’s possible you’re not especially opposed to indiscrimate killing. It seems likely that most people will disagree with you here. On the whole, people do rather tend to think that killing innocent people is a bad thing, and that killing lots of them is definitely a no no.

Okay, we’ll worry some more about this later on. For now, let’s see how you get along with our first moral scenario.

Moral Secnario 1 of 2

While badly overworked, a hospital surgeon became careless, and made a terrible mistake: rather than dispensing the correct medication to his patients, he inadvertently gave five of them a deadly, slow-acting chemical. This chemical works differently in different people, which means the surgeon has ended up in a situation where he needs five separate organs to save their lives (two lungs, two kidneys and a heart). Without these organs, his five patients will definitely die; or, to put this another way, it will turn out that he killed them by administering the chemical.

As it happens, a young backpacker has come into the hospital for a routine checkup (which is the sort of thing that happens a lot in a hospital). It turns out the backpacker is in excellent health, and has exactly the right blood type to guarantee success if the surgeon transplants his organs into the five patients. All he needs do is cut him up and distribute his parts among the five who need them. Assuming (a) that the backpacker doesn’t consent to giving up his life to save five other people, (b) that the lives of the five people will be saved if, and only if, the organs are transplanted, and (c) that nobody will ever find out what the surgeon has done, is it morally permissible for the surgeon to take matters into his own hands, and operate?

Yes, it is morally permissible for the surgeon to operate
No, it is not morally permissible for the surgeon to operate

1 Like
#28839

anyway her magnum opus is a defense of abortion and i’m not sure that this quiz isn’t at some point going to lead up to that

1 Like
#28840

lmao

1 Like
#28841

But like why, dodging the issue only makes it worse

1 Like
#28842

oh

#28843

Yes

1 Like