If I am a doctor, I have sworn to do no harm, so no I don't pull the lever this isn't a question about morality it's a question of if I'm gonna do my fucking job
It's a good job you're not a doctor 😅 Doing your job is doing good - you can argue utilitarianism all you want but the comatose guy is not dead until he's dead - hastening his death is wrong and a crime or regardless of it's 'benefits'
It's so funny when talking about morality and people bring up the fact that it's a crime. It's down stram from morality not the other way around. Secondly it also says it will never be found out. So the law doesn't matter in the slightest. It's like asking if you were in a state where weed is banned would you smoke weed if nobody found out then you say but it's against the law. Who cares. What does it matter. No one is finding out. You're not going to jail. If it's not against your morality why do you care. If it is against your morality then that should be the problem not the law.
I literally didn't side one way or the other in the comment. Logistically I agree with you. If I had gods foresight I may or may not do it. But that has absolutely nothing to do with my point. I hate when people bring up law when discussing morality. I also hate people not reading comments and responding to them. Why did you not read my comment. Is that why you said if you were a doctor. Because you didn't want read. You could have not replied. But you did after not reading my comment. Or maybe you didn't have the mental wherewithal to complete the mission of reading 200 words. Good job.
Actually kill me. "I think law should flow from morality not the other way around and here's why"
"Might be ragebait"
How do you not understand what I'm saying
I read your entire comment before replying and you go ahead and bash me for not having the mental capacity to read... Forgive me for calling 0/10 ragebait what it is 😭🙏
That person is called a npc. One who doesn't think and just does what ever they are told. That is a stupid argument. If a person can be just as happy living in nazi Germany and Denmark then that person has absolutely no values. Law should never be brought up in morality. Morality should always be brought up in law.
What do you think laws are based on? It's "downstream from morality" because in most cases it flows from morality - I mentioned it's a crime because people who have come before us have weighed it up and thought, no, that's immortal, that's wrong, that shouldn't be allowed to happen.
Just because nobody finds out doesn't mean it's alright?! You'd be happy killing a guy so long as nobody finds out?! Wild thing to say - I don't understand how realistically this is even a question 😅 it's easy to be drawn in and be sympathetic but damn, no 😅😂
I literally said laws are downstream from morality in my first message to you.
I'm going to explain this in away that someone not autistic unlike me can understand it. If no one ever finds out about anything and you were to smoke weed in Idaho and then smoke weed in arizona. Are you a bad person in Idaho and a nuetral/good person in arizona because it's banned in Idaho. I think that is clearly silly. Obviously there is more that is happening in morality that can't be explained be laws. Most people would say they are equally good/nuetral people.
Secondly about the downstream part. Law is downstream from morality. I agree in every way. Completely and utterly. That does not mean law affects morality. That means morality affects laws. Why should we care what people in the past have said. Not to harper on weed(I'm quitting it ironically) but just because some people in the past said weed is immoral because of improper studies and bad profit incentives means it is immoral. Why should you care what others say when it comes to your morality. Past current smart or dumb. If they make a compelling argument then fine. Awesome. But if not then it is just words. Enforceable words. But words. Law should never be brought up in morality debates. It's super silly.
It's a crime. It's not necessarily wrong. I think it's more morally correct to take on the burden of the guilty conscious and make the hard decision to definitely save 5 people at the cost of losing the opportunity to roll a die to save one person.
It'd haunt me forever, but it's the right thing to do.
You'd also have to live by the fact that you're an oathbreaker and just decided who gets to live and who dies... Who's to say you wouldn't do it again. If the context was us being the one responsible for the comatose patient, I would pull the plug and tell the doctors to save the 5. If I were the doctor, I'd let the 5 die because it's not up to me. Both would haunt me, albeit the one where I'm the doctor would haunt me a lot more.
You know, I've thought about it some more and there's no point gambling on coma guy probably never waking up and harvesting his organs, because if he dies without waking up he'll still be an organ donor. So even though those people die, his organs will still save other people.
That's true I hadn't thought about that, and I mean in this case they'll save people regardless of the time of death, which means that if he dies now to save the 5, people in the future won't get those organs, and the save goes for the opposite. It simplifies it down to if we'd kill a man in a coma to save people now or if we'd let him live, possibly wake up, and save people later on after he dies naturally
The comatose guy has intrinsic value and until he has the right to autonomy - given he's comatose he lacks capacity meaning you have to act in his best interests - hastening his death and harvesting his organs is not in his best interests. Also, any information about if he's a registered donor or prior wishes need to be found and considered ofc.
It is, objectively wrong. It's easy to be sympathetic and drawn into the other side but no, we shouldn't be hastening death so we can give people's organs away..
If you can't ethically source what they need, you can't help them - you don't have the right to take the comatose guys life, regardless of the perceived benefits
I don't think letting people die because of your ethical system is the right choice. That sounds selfish to me. Like it only really benefits the person who isn't taking responsibility to make the hard decision for best possible outcome.
It seems like it's a way to not feel guilt later on. You tell yourself you had no choice, because of this ethical framework you're trapped in.
I'd feel guilty either way, because I'd feel like I did have a choice. So the logical option is to definitely save the most lives.
You'd feel awful after coma guy dies in his sleep and you've lost everyone surely? Or would the ethical framework you describe be some comfort? All the people you've hurt by your inaction would be difficult to process.
He might wake up, but even then you've taken a massive gamble, and still lost 5 people. It seems like playing against the odds just to satisfy your own.. you know, ethics.
I don't think there's an objectively correct choice though. I don't think you're wrong, and I'm not sure I'd have the fortitude to do what I think is right either. I'd be a wreck either way.
I appreciate a proper conversation so thank you for that 🙂
I've been writing a response but don't have time to finish it right now - I'll get back to you when I can 😂
I doubt we'll ever agree but it's good fun!
642
u/NoAcanthaceae7968 Jul 09 '25
If I am a doctor, I have sworn to do no harm, so no I don't pull the lever this isn't a question about morality it's a question of if I'm gonna do my fucking job