So this is purely hypothetical, I'm just interested to hear what everyone's opinions on this are. So let's say you're a doctor in a surgery room. Your dad comes in, badly injured but can be saved if you act in time, you don't have long. But there are 6 people who will die due to lack of organs needed for transplants. Your father is an organ donor and you can harvest them if you let him die, saving the lives of 6 other people. Or you can save your father, the man who raised you but let 6 strangers die for him. Which do you choose?
- Father100% (2)80% (8)83% (10)Vote
- 6 Strangers0% (0)20% (2)17% (2)Vote
Most Helpful Guy
This one is not so hard for me because I'm a strong supporter of the Kantian school of thinking. Utilitarianism makes only very limited sense to me because I don't believe in Bentham's idea that saving more people is automatically better. Like Kant, I strongly believe that the human being as such has already an unlimited worth and value in and of itself. Or as the first article of the German constitution states it: "The dignity of any human being is indefeasible" (I really love this sentence, it sounds even better in German). Thus, it makes no sense to me to create more goodness by saving more people because the individual human being is already the highest value that can be achieved and every single individual is therefore worth being saved.1