Question: Two men enter, only one can leave...but one's dying anyway

[jimmy]

Hahaha, I know I’m not insane and the only one who can’t stand the extreme questions.

 

[mpartyka]

Less extreme situation, then:

Three men are mountain climbing, two are roped together. An accident happens. One of the roped men slips, is knocked unconscious, and suffers a severe laceration to his leg so that he is bleeding out – there’s no way he’s going to live, even if the other two men could pull him to safety. Moreover, the unconscious, dying man’s dead weight is making it impossible for his linked companion to hang on. The third man, fortunately, is in reach of the rope that binds the two roped men and can cut it. If the third man cuts the rope, the first man will certainly die, but the second man will live. If the third man does not cut the rope, both the first and the second man will certainly die.

Question: Is it morally permissible for the third man to cut the rope?

 

[mpartyka]

Actually, here’s a situation I like better, since I actually saw this scenario on the NBC show “Third Watch.”

Two men are trapped in a burning building. If they aren’t rescued, they will burn to death.

Complication: The two men are pinned by slabs of fallen concrete. Firefighters make it to the two men but realize they can only shift the slabs of concrete to free one of them. Here’s the catch, though – shifting the slabs to free the one man will necessarily crush the other man to death.

Question: Is it morally permissible to free the one man, even though the process will kill the other man?

---

One more for the road:

Siamese twins go to the hospital because one of the twins collapsed and lost consciousness. The doctors determine that the unconscious twin is dying, without hope of recovery, and inevitably the other twin will die as well if they aren’t separated now. However, the separation process with kill the still-living, but unconscious and dying, twin.

Question: Is it morally permissible to separate the dying twin, killing him in the process, to save the other twin?

 

[GEddie]

Actually, here’s a situation I like better, since I actually saw this scenario on the NBC show “Third Watch.”

Two men are trapped in a burning building. If they aren’t rescued, they will burn to death.

Complication: The two men are pinned by slabs of fallen concrete. Firefighters make it to the two men but realize they can only shift the slabs of concrete to free one of them. Here’s the catch, though – shifting the slabs to free the one man will necessarily crush the other man to death.

Question: Is it morally permissible to free the one man, even though the process will kill the other man?

---

One more for the road:

Siamese twins go to the hospital because one of the twins collapsed and lost consciousness. The doctors determine that the unconscious twin is dying, without hope of recovery, and inevitably the other twin will die as well if they aren’t separated now. However, the separation process with kill the still-living, but unconscious and dying, twin.

Question: Is it morally permissible to separate the dying twin, killing him in the process, to save the other twin?

The third case has happened.

Even without one of the STs already in a dying state, surgeons have separated STs that shared body organs such that one would die. The goal is not to kill one, but to save the other, whose organs would not sustain two bodies. Such is morally acceptable.

I imagine that in the concrete slab instance, that too would be acceptable, as killing the second victim is not intrinsic to saving the first. It is a simple accident of location.
The mountaineering example is different, as then you are deliberately killing someone to save another. I know it looks the same, but I am not a philosopher just an average sinner.

ICXC NIKA

 

[Marc_Anthony]

Actually, here’s a situation I like better, since I actually saw this scenario on the NBC show “Third Watch.”

Two men are trapped in a burning building. If they aren’t rescued, they will burn to death.

Complication: The two men are pinned by slabs of fallen concrete. Firefighters make it to the two men but realize they can only shift the slabs of concrete to free one of them. Here’s the catch, though – shifting the slabs to free the one man will necessarily crush the other man to death.

Question: Is it morally permissible to free the one man, even though the process will kill the other man?

---

One more for the road:

Siamese twins go to the hospital because one of the twins collapsed and lost consciousness. The doctors determine that the unconscious twin is dying, without hope of recovery, and inevitably the other twin will die as well if they aren’t separated now. However, the separation process with kill the still-living, but unconscious and dying, twin.

Question: Is it morally permissible to separate the dying twin, killing him in the process, to save the other twin?

(For the original thread-opening question the answer is no, absolutely not.)

1. Yes, it is, because you’re rescuing one person and somebody will unfortunately get killed in the process, not killing somebody to rescue one person.
2. No, it’s not, because you’re killing somebody to rescue somebody else. One is saving that unfortunately will kill somebody, the other is killing that will save somebody else.

Obviously in the real world though these situations are tremendously difficult and I wouldn’t judge the person who had to make the decision.

 

[choose_to_love]

Twist to the OP’s original scenario: Can the knife holder licitly kill himself to preserve more air for the other fella? He doesn’t want to end his life, it is just a consequence, unintended but foreseen, of preserving air for the other?

 

[mpartyka]

Looks like I’m getting two conflicting answers on the Siamese twin scenario:

1. “Even without one of the STs already in a dying state, surgeons have separated STs that shared body organs such that one would die. The goal is not to kill one, but to save the other, whose organs would not sustain two bodies. Such is morally acceptable.”
2. “No, it’s not, because you’re killing somebody to rescue somebody else.”

I have to ask regarding (2): Since when is it morally wrong to kill somebody to rescue somebody else?

For example: Say a police officer stumbles upon someone pointing a gun at another person and shouting, “I’m gonna kill you!” Now, unless and until the person with the gun actually pulls the trigger, there must be some amount of uncertainty in whether the person will fire the gun. But I do not think that precludes the police officer from shooting the gun-wielder to prevent the gun’s discharge, does it?

What makes the doctor’s acting on the dying siamese twin different from the police officer’s acting on the gun-wielding assailant, other than the absolute certainty on the doctor’s part that the twin will die from the procedure (whereas the police officer cannot know whether the shots he fires will be lethal)?

Or suppose we threw a bit of Rube-Goldberg into the scenario with the police officer and the gunman: The police officer can only stop the gunman from shooting his intended target by shoving the gunman off a high platform, thus necessarily killing him.

(Don’t forget to chime in on the mountain-climbing scenario if you haven’t already!)

 

[MarkInOregon]

Why do people keep coming up with silly hypothetical scenarios like this.

The answer to your question is no. It is not morally acceptable. The Church clearly teaches the end (even if good) does not justify the means (if bad - in this case murder).

Because they want to try and force you to make a choice contrary to the Churches teaching regarding such matters. They believe it is absurd not to kill the man who is going to die anyway to preserve your own life and they want to make the point that Church teaching regarding these things is stupid because we now have two dead instead of one. That’s my take anyway.

Peace,
Mark

 

[pig]

no, you cannot trust a serial killer. sneeky fellas…

 

[pig]

Less extreme situation, then:

Three men are mountain climbing, two are roped together. An accident happens. One of the roped men slips, is knocked unconscious, and suffers a severe laceration to his leg so that he is bleeding out – there’s no way he’s going to live, even if the other two men could pull him to safety. Moreover, the unconscious, dying man’s dead weight is making it impossible for his linked companion to hang on. The third man, fortunately, is in reach of the rope that binds the two roped men and can cut it. If the third man cuts the rope, the first man will certainly die, but the second man will live. If the third man does not cut the rope, both the first and the second man will certainly die.

Question: Is it morally permissible for the third man to cut the rope?

how on earth can the two men know for sure or at all that the man is bleeding out, given the distance, clothing, the fact that they are almost certainly out of sight (above a cornice?) etc., etc.
You do not need to speculate, there was a documentary made about just this a few years back, touching the void I think it was, or something.
Even though the man was cut free he still survived plus he had some kind of supernatural hallucination and a miraculous meeting with a stranger who saved his life!

 

[Reepicheep]

No, my point is that the no-win situation does exist, even if the extreme cases basically never happen. The less extreme cases do happen. You may not be able to prepare for unexpected, but you can allow your mind to dwell on greater moral principles that these examples bring to light. And in doing so, perhaps gain purchase on a moral principle that can be applied to a less extreme case happening in the future.

Here’s your moral principal. “Do not commit murder”.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

Situation: Two men are kidnapped by a serial killer. The serial killer poisons one man with a 100% lethal poison that renders the man unconscious – this man will die within 24 hours, no antidote, no chance, he’s not waking up ever again, bar none. The serial killer then hands the other man a knife and seals both men in an airtight room with enough air to last two men for 12 hours or one man for 24 hours and says, “I’ll open the room in 24 hours.” There are now two options:

1. Both men suffocate to death in 12 hours.
2. The man with the knife stabs the unconscious, already-dying man to death so that he himself will survive the 24 hours.

Is it morally acceptable for the man with the knife to stab the dying man to save his own life? (Remember, there’s only 24 hours of air for one man in the room – the decision has to be now.)

Review Catholic moral teachings concerning abortion. That will answer your question.

 

[mpartyka]

They believe it is absurd not to kill the man who is going to die anyway to preserve your own life and they want to make the point that Church teaching regarding these things is stupid because we now have two dead instead of one.

Isn’t it stupid to have two dead instead of one, when one death is inevitable while the other death is preventable at the price of hastening the inevitable death?

I was reading a book about a zombie apocalypse where a father, his son, a mother, and her son were all walking through a horde of zombies, covered in zombie gore to mask their scent. The mother’s son, frightened, peed his pants, thus alerting the zombies around him to his being alive and tasty. The mother wouldn’t let go of her son, despite the fact that the zombies were already starting to chomp on him. The mother also wouldn’t let go of the father’s son. To save his son (and himself), then, the father swung his axe and chopped off the mother’s hand, thus freeing his son (and himself) to live, while leaving the mother and her son to die. I cannot morally fault the father for this. There was no sense in all four of them dying just because the mother refused to let go of her dying son (or let go of the living son and father who still had a chance to get away).

It seems no good to me to split hairs and say, in the case of the mountain climbers, for example, “It’s okay to cut the rope and let the unconscious, dying man fall to his death because it’s really gravity that will kill him, not you.” Even if the man dragging the other man down were fully conscious, not dying in his own right, and in fact begging for his life, I still wouldn’t see the moral value in permitting both him and the other man he’s dragging down to both die when the possibility exists of preserving the other man’s life at the doomed man’s expense – doomed is doomed, so the point should be to preserve the lives that aren’t doomed. Right?

 

[Reepicheep]

For me, it is important to ask some additional questions. “Is it morally acceptable for the man to stab the dying man” is not the only question- but rather, “Can we have the degree of certainty necessary to know that our act of killing is only hastening a death that is otherwise inevitable.”

Think about it- in this situation, it is still absolutely not justifiable for the healthy man to kill the dying man, since there are so many unknowns.

Based on his behavior, we know that the serial killer is quite capable of acting immorally- therefore we cannot trust him not to lie. Therefore, we have no reliable information about the poison that the other man has been given, whether it is actually fatal, whether there is an antidote.

Furthermore, we don’t know for sure the capacity of the room and the amount of air. Even if the information came from some supposedly reliable source and not the serial killer, it is still possible that there is a miscalculation about the amount of air required, or about the amount of time that it will take the other man to die.

In addition- there is no evidence that killing the (possibly) poisoned man will actually save a life- as we have seen, the serial killer is not to be trusted and so we have no evidence that the door will actually open in 24 hours. More likely, based on an evaluation of the killer and how he is likely to behave, both men will die anyway.

I would argue that it is never possible for situations in life to be predictable to the degree that the OP is proposing- therefore it is always possible that the healthy man might actually be killing someone who would not otherwise die.

Quoted for truth. This is one of the flaws in such arguments; that in real life things would never be quite that cut-and-dried.

 

[Reepicheep]

Because this is what passes for philosophical and ethical discussion among men of low wit.

Been waiting to say that for quite a long time!

And, obviously, the answer is no. (In fact, it’s quite trivial to construct a counter-example, but these sorts of “pseudo-ethical” conundrums just annoy the heck out of me.)

And sometimes among men of hostile or dishonest intent.
Note that I do not accuse the OP of hostility or dishonesty; I don’t know him and will not make such an assumption.

 

[Reepicheep]

Less extreme situation, then:

Three men are mountain climbing, two are roped together. An accident happens. One of the roped men slips, is knocked unconscious, and suffers a severe laceration to his leg so that he is bleeding out – there’s no way he’s going to live, even if the other two men could pull him to safety. Moreover, the unconscious, dying man’s dead weight is making it impossible for his linked companion to hang on. The third man, fortunately, is in reach of the rope that binds the two roped men and can cut it. If the third man cuts the rope, the first man will certainly die, but the second man will live. If the third man does not cut the rope, both the first and the second man will certainly die.

Question: Is it morally permissible for the third man to cut the rope?

How do you know the first man will die? Specifically, how does the third man know the first man will certainly die?
How does he know the second man can’t make it to safety with his help?
For that matter how does it happen that the third man is within range to cut the rope below the second man’s position but not in range to help the second man climb to safety?

 

[Reepicheep]

Looks like I’m getting two conflicting answers on the Siamese twin scenario:

1. “Even without one of the STs already in a dying state, surgeons have separated STs that shared body organs such that one would die. The goal is not to kill one, but to save the other, whose organs would not sustain two bodies. Such is morally acceptable.”
2. “No, it’s not, because you’re killing somebody to rescue somebody else.”

I have to ask regarding (2): Since when is it morally wrong to kill somebody to rescue somebody else?

For example: Say a police officer stumbles upon someone pointing a gun at another person and shouting, “I’m gonna kill you!” Now, unless and until the person with the gun actually pulls the trigger, there must be some amount of uncertainty in whether the person will fire the gun. But I do not think that precludes the police officer from shooting the gun-wielder to prevent the gun’s discharge, does it?

What makes the doctor’s acting on the dying siamese twin different from the police officer’s acting on the gun-wielding assailant, other than the absolute certainty on the doctor’s part that the twin will die from the procedure (whereas the police officer cannot know whether the shots he fires will be lethal)?

Or suppose we threw a bit of Rube-Goldberg into the scenario with the police officer and the gunman: The police officer can only stop the gunman from shooting his intended target by shoving the gunman off a high platform, thus necessarily killing him.

(Don’t forget to chime in on the mountain-climbing scenario if you haven’t already!)

About the Siamese Twins, I don’t know.
About the cop: yes. The cop may act to protect the intended victim even if his only available action is a lethal attack on the murderer.

 

[GEddie]

Once an example involves zombies, I think it can be safely dismissed. That is something we do not need to worry about.

About people who are non-dying being sacrificed to save others, there is an example in the film “Master and Commander”. About midway through that film, the ship is in a mid-ocean storm that collapses its mast and sends several men into the ocean. They are unable to climb back onboard against the wave force, and the weight of the fallen mast threatens to swamp the ship. The captain himself cuts the mast loose, thereby drowning the men clinging to it, to save his ship and remaining crew.

This is morally acceptable because killing the men was not part of saving the ship. If there had been nobody on the mast, cutting it would still have been the thing to do. There was just no time to retrieve the men before doing so.

However, making someone walk the plank to lighten the ship would not have been acceptable.

ICXC NIKA

 

[mpartyka]

However, making someone walk the plank to lighten the ship would not have been acceptable.

Why not?

I’m reminded of a science fiction story called, “The Cold Equations.” In it, a young girl stows away on a space shuttle carrying medicine to a colony planet needed to cure several dying men, including the girl’s brother. Unfortunately for the girl, the ship was given only enough fuel to carry the ship, the pilot, and the medicine to the planet. The girl’s added weight meant the ship would crash…unless she exited the ship. She did so willingly to save the lives of her brother and the other men on the planet.

Was she wrong to essentially commit suicide to save others? But more than that, had she not been willing to leave the ship, wouldn’t the pilot have been morally justified in ejecting her from the ship forcefully? After all, it was her life vs. several lives – one innocent vs. many innocents, and as it happened the one was bound to die along with the many if she didn’t go.

 

[mpartyka]

About the Siamese Twins, I don’t know.
About the cop: yes. The cop may act to protect the intended victim even if his only available action is a lethal attack on the murderer.

But what then prevents the doctor from acting to protect one siamese twin from death even if the only available action is a lethal operation on the other siamese twin?