/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.12585700]

What are your opinions on this, /lit/?

Is saving 4 lives and killing none equivalent to saving 5 and killing 1?

[Anonymous No.12585713]

Did the potential saving of lives from the war justify dropping the nuclear bombs on Japan?

[Anonymous No.12585721]

>>12585700
wonderful photoshop

[Anonymous No.12585729]

>>12585713
Fucking obviously. The japs were lucky they got nuked lmao. I'd really love to see USSR+USA doubleteam on that subhuman insectoid island (while continously getting firebombed to the extent of nukes)

[Anonymous No.12585763]

Imagine the trolley dilemma from the perspective a doctor and four patients that need organ transplants asap or they will die. There are no appropriate organs available except that of unconscious potential universal donor who would never consent to being butchered for the life of the four. All of his organs, if harvested, by the doctor/surgeon would save the four in time. Is it licit for the doctor to kill him to save the four?

UTILITARIANS GET THE FUCK OFF MY BOARD

[Anonymous No.12585766]

>>12585729
Please keep it civil, I dont want this degenerating into some /pol/ shitposting :)

>>12585713
Is it ethical to have children?
Is being born and dying equivalent to non-existence ?

[Anonymous No.12585778]

>>12585766
>he thinks Japan should have won the war
kys

[Anonymous No.12585781]

>>12585778
I don't have an opinion
But calling them subhuman insectoids is going to end in a flame war

[Anonymous No.12585832]

>>12585763

I can imagine that there is a feeling of unease because no one wants to be that person getting killed.
There was a sentiment that morality is evolution selecting for herd instinct.

You could take it to a lesser extreme, that people could be forced to donate one kidney, since they can survive that.

There is still an uneasy feeling regarding that though

[Anonymous No.12585875]

>>12585763
They're both considerations of utility though... The utility of that potential 'donor' (although he can't technically be a donor without consenting) and the utility of people who derive a sense of security from knowing they won't be harvested for organs without consent.

You intentionally oversimplify the situation to suit your perspective. Is the non-donor going to die anyways? Are the four in need actually psychopaths that aren't worth saving? Is what is considered licit not predominantly a matter of convention? I would apply general rule utilitarianism to the situation, and suggest that the utility derived from protecting the principle of consent outweighs any utility which can be gained from violating it in that circumstance.

[Anonymous No.12585881]

>>12585832
cringe and chink bugman-pilled

[Anonymous No.12585919]

>>12585875
How is what I propose any different than the trolley? You're just obsfucating because in this scenario you get your hands dirty instead of just pulling a lever. Not enough distance for you?
>Is the non-donor going to die anyways?
No, and neither is the man on the track before you meddled with it.
>Are the four in need actually psychopaths that aren't worth saving?
No, just regular and otherwise healthy people who will live full lives afterword, potentially.
>suggest that the utility derived from protecting the principle of consent outweighs any utility which can be gained from violating it in that circumstance.
Lets say, for the sake of argument, there wouldn't be any legal repercussions.

[Anonymous No.12586217]

>>12585919
I didn't mean you were oversimplifying the trolley you pseud, I meant you were oversimplyfing the very situation you presented.

Legal repercussions aren't the issue, the utility of the principle of consent is in how it influences all of our interactions which eachother and provides more stability and security for everyone involved. I guess I shouldn't expect people who thoughtlessly reject and mischaracterize utilitarianism to have any genuine insight.

Assuming 'neutrality' of considerations in the trolley problem, you are left with numbers, consent and the fact that you're in the immediate position to intervene. In this particular situation, it is ostensibly a vey rare occurrence and there is no possibility of obtaining consent, so I think it would be reasonable to default to saving the most people. If you could obtain consent, it's muddier because they are all capable of consent and none of them have to die. Does not-consenting to non-intervention cancel out the consent for it? I'm not sure... I am sure the intervenor couldn't rationally be accused of murder either way. The argument of 'let things run their course' ignores that you are part of the causal chain. I would stick with saving the most people, as I am not the one tied them up and forced the situation in the first place. It is that person who is responsible for all violations, I would merely be making the best out of an awful situation.

[Anonymous No.12586258]

>>12585778
they were going to surrender irregardless, mutts just wanted to flex

[Anonymous No.12586396]

>>12586258

[Anonymous No.12586400]

>>12585713
Pearl Harbor justified the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan