M
MW 590
Guest
In my summer Philosophy Class at college, I was given a homework assignment to watch this video about when murder is ok. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY The video provided important examples. I do not think that directly murdering an innocent person is ever ok and I will explain my reasons for each of the examples.
The first example the speaker gave is that if you are a trolley driver and the driver is going super fast and the breaks are not working. There are 5 people on the tracks ahead but you have the ability as a driver to steer the trolley to go onto a side track. The side track has one person on it. Should you go on the side track and run over 1 person to save the lives of 5?
I think not because if you choose go on the side track, it is deliberately taking someone's life while running 5 people over is not deliberate.
The speaker then gave a scenario where a bunch of people are injured in a hospital and one is in a more critical condition and about to die while the others have more time to survive but if you save the life of that person, it will cause the others to die. In that situation I justify giving medical attention to the others to save their lives, because letting 1 person die is not direct murder because it is not the intent for him to die, it is an unavoidable consequence.
The speaker then mentioned the famous R v Dudley and Stephens case where they and the cabin boy Richard Parker were shipwrecked and lost at sea, and to survive, they ate Richard and when they were found, they were arrested. I think that it was wrong for them to eat him because it is still murder and his life was not less valuable than theirs.
The speaker then asked if Richard consented to getting eaten, would it be justified for them to do so? I still think it would be wrong because that argument can be used to justify euthanizing people who are suicidal.
The first example the speaker gave is that if you are a trolley driver and the driver is going super fast and the breaks are not working. There are 5 people on the tracks ahead but you have the ability as a driver to steer the trolley to go onto a side track. The side track has one person on it. Should you go on the side track and run over 1 person to save the lives of 5?
I think not because if you choose go on the side track, it is deliberately taking someone's life while running 5 people over is not deliberate.
The speaker then gave a scenario where a bunch of people are injured in a hospital and one is in a more critical condition and about to die while the others have more time to survive but if you save the life of that person, it will cause the others to die. In that situation I justify giving medical attention to the others to save their lives, because letting 1 person die is not direct murder because it is not the intent for him to die, it is an unavoidable consequence.
The speaker then mentioned the famous R v Dudley and Stephens case where they and the cabin boy Richard Parker were shipwrecked and lost at sea, and to survive, they ate Richard and when they were found, they were arrested. I think that it was wrong for them to eat him because it is still murder and his life was not less valuable than theirs.
The speaker then asked if Richard consented to getting eaten, would it be justified for them to do so? I still think it would be wrong because that argument can be used to justify euthanizing people who are suicidal.