Do you view life quanitifably?

This is a difficult question to answer, because you never know what you'll do until faced with the dilemma.
The AF/Navy pilots who have been ordered to shoot down commercial aircraft with terrorists on board. They HAVE to choose the lives of those on the ground to the ones on board. Difficult--and thank God I don't have to do it.
This question has bugged me since I was a child and we learned about the holocaust--the Nazis would make parents choose between their two children which would live and which would die. That choice is inconceivable to me.
Also to be considered are: what are the societal values? Is old age valued? Is youth valued? Is wealth valued? Is intelligence valued? Society will probably choose the current value when considering who shall live and die.
I would want to believe that all life is sacred--from the least to the greatest. (Again, what are you determining as greatest?) To me that withered old lady probably means a whole lot more than that wall-street investor.
Now, if given a choice--I would hope I would sacrifice my life to save two others--strangers or not.

doesn't this treat people as a means to an end, not as their own moral agents deserving of respect?

doesn't this treat people as a means to an end, not as their own moral agents deserving of respect? Only in a specific situation of which the details have not been made clear. In our society, our lives are equal. We are not faced with this choice. But if I had to choose between saving the life of the scientist OR the monkey handlers (I prefer to think along those lines instead of who would I kill), considering the impact on society of the loss of either the scientist or the monkey handlers would not be unethical, and a single person can assign values and act accordingly. You're talking about Sophie's Choice here. No one should ever have to make this choice, but if one had to, what does one do? There are no winners here.

Only in a specific situation of which the details have not been made clear. In our society, our lives are equal. We are not faced with this choice. But if I had to choose between saving the life of the scientist OR the monkey handlers (I prefer to think along those lines instead of who would I kill), considering the impact on society of the loss of either the scientist or the monkey handlers would not be unethical, and a single person can assign values and act accordingly. You're talking about Sophie's Choice here. No one should ever have to make this choice, but if one had to, what does one do? There are no winners here. right - if one life is lost then there are no winners

This reminds me of a controversy a while back involvong PM Berlusconi (of Italy).

He stated that Western Civiliation was 'better'.

Well all the PC crowd were up in arms and asking for his head.

I am not afraid to say that I agree with him.

And that fact that I can say that I agree with him without fear of reprisal is pretty cool, too.

You could always just kill the ugly one.

You could always just kill the ugly one. Also subjective.

Also subjective. RIIIIIGHT... Kathy Kinney

My father was faced with that question many years ago. My mother had severe toxiemia (eclampsia) with her first pregnancy. To induce labor, the baby would be premature and life would be risked. To not induce, my mother's life was severely at risk. My father (against his religious teachings and my mother's wishes) gave permission to deliver the baby.

I believe it was correct thing to do.


sue

Prohemp says:

A Quick Ethical Question

There is no such thing.

Prohemp says:

A Quick Ethical Question

There is no such thing. Finally