Posted by alexandra_k on March 1, 2005, at 14:40:00
In reply to Six, posted by Rach on March 1, 2005, at 3:57:44
> What if the six people were men who broke out from high security prison, and were all serial murderers? And the one person was Mother Teresa? Or Ghandi? Or the guy who finds a cure for depression?
That would be changing the case... But what if that one person was going to donate millions of dollars to a feed the children charity the next day thereby saving thousands of lives...???
Changing the case might change our answer with respect to what we *should do*, yup.
> I would do nothing. Because if I changed the course of that train, then I would be choosing to kill that one person. It would be MY fault that the one person died. By doing nothing, I personally have not created or caused the situation.Ok. So we are morally responsible for our 'actions' but not our 'inactions'?? Is that the rationale?
'Letting die' is okay?
What if you are standing on the bank of a river. You are a strong swimmer. A child is drowning. If you jump in you can save the child, if you do not then the child will die. Is it morally acceptable to 'do nothing' in this case???
poster:alexandra_k
thread:464517
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/social/20050224/msgs/464974.html