[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 6 KB, 119x150, pinocchio-paradox.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3137652 No.3137652 [Reply] [Original]

Here's an ethical dilemma.

A doctor must attend to three injured patients: a powerful old politician, an animal of critically endangered species, and a poor young woman. Of the three, only the powerful old politician can pay for the doctor's treatment. The politician has only minor injuries, while the animal is in critical condition and will die if not seen to first, and the woman is heavily wounded and will die if seen to last.

Who should the doctor treat, in which order, and why? Assume they are alone in a sealed room, and the doctor is the only one with medical supplies. Your answer will reveal a great deal about your ethical beliefs.

>> No.3137660

None.

Why the fuck would I want to handle the pressure? Get the bitch nurse to do it.

>> No.3137659

Does it help that I don't believe in absolute morality?

I would take the animal first, then the woman.

>> No.3137665
File: 28 KB, 520x293, d42n7v-520x293.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3137665

Save the animal and then the woman. Send the politician elsewhere. We don't take kindly to his sort here.

>> No.3137667

animal, woman, politician.

Politician is in best condition, unlike the others, so he is automatically last. Animal will die if not seen to first, woman will die if not seen to last (which means she can be seen second, while the animal cannot).

>> No.3137671

>>3137652
1 the one who will die if not seen first
2 the one who will die if seen last
3 the one with minor injuries

Regardless of the order the politician will pay in the end so the doctor will get his money and be able to be ethical in the process.

>> No.3137669

The way you phrase it, the choice is obvious.

Animal, Woman, Politician.

The animal will die if not treated first, the woman will die if treated last, so just treat the animal first and the woman not last, and that's it.

Not too hard.

>> No.3137677

OP you made it too easy

>> No.3137682

>>3137652
>the american way
Treat the politican, tell everyone else to fuck off because they can't afford the treatment.

>> No.3137689

The doctor should help the woman, then the politician, and then take blood and tissue samples from the endangered animal for cloning at some point in the future. In reality, he would tread the politician, then the woman.

>> No.3137691

Animal, woman, politician. How is that even a dilemma?

>> No.3137693
File: 56 KB, 212x386, franken_fran.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3137693

Treat them all at the same time. Preferably by combining them into a new and interesting form of life.

>> No.3137700

>>3137682
The American way, by law, is to treat people who need it regardless if they can pay.

>> No.3137710

>>3137682
you've never actually been to an american emergency room have you.

They HAVE to treat you. By law. Even if you're not even a citizen.

>> No.3137715

As the others have said, the order is ridiculously simple. The only question is what are the costs associated with helping the animal and woman?

We can rule out loss of life since the noted order saves everyone. If the only other cost is mainly time, then it's fine to do some free work as long as it doesn't get seen as setting some sort of precedent (doctors need to eat too). If there is a risk of, say, the hospital you work at firing you for it, things become much trickier. How likely would you be able to find other work?

You presented an incredibly simple scenario, but as always there are many more complex and important details that have to be considered.

If you can only do one thing free, then the woman should be saved, non-sapient creatures are less valuable, endangered or not.

>> No.3137720

The woman as we are now ethically bound to assist oppressed groups.

>> No.3137712

>>3137652
i'd treat politician,get promotion and lots of money.
i dont give crap about animals,its evolution baby.
and i dont like poor young woman only miserable people will treat her to have sex with her

>> No.3137723

will the woman experience lots of extra suffering if seen to second, if so then woman first and politician second, the animal dies after not being seen first so it is not seen.

If the woman will not experience lots of suffering from being seen first then animal, woman, politician is pretty obvious

>> No.3137725

Animal, Woman, Politician

Unless I'm a personal doctor, I'd get payed for just being part of the hospital, and if not, or even if I am, acting like a good samaritan could make me more popular and lead to better job opportunities.

>> No.3137730

>>3137712
politician
woman
dog

>> No.3137732

politician, woman, dead animal. screw animals, and the woman didn't die, its her responsibility to be capable of affording health care, unless you feel doctors should dedicate their lives to one of the most demanding professions in the world and do it for free.

>> No.3137733

woman then politician
you're not a vet

>> No.3137736

>>3137715
Although as was mentioned, if you're working in an emergency room, then it's no problem. You're required to provide service whether they can pay or not (what the fuck is an animal doing in a human emergency room then, though?). You're not the one who has to shoulder any associated costs aside from time.

>> No.3137743

>>3137652

> A politician.

I do not support the state, I would tell him to go elsewhere.

> An animal.

I am not a vet.

Poor woman.

I do not perform services and give products for free.

>> No.3137745

Animal, woman and the politician can die because he's a politician.

>>3137710
That's a technicality, so long as they have other patients that need immediate attention they don't have to treat you.

>> No.3137747
File: 175 KB, 422x569, Untitled-4.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3137747

Just the animal.

DESTROY ALL HUMANS

>> No.3137758

fuck dude Im not even a doctor

>> No.3137763

fuck girl, eat pizza, steal bike

>> No.3137764

kill politician, eat woman, fuck animal, or kill politician, fuck woman, eat animal if I feel lucky.

wait, this isn't /b/ sorry, save woman, then politician, bbq animal for job well done.

>> No.3137768

How about I eat the animal, steal the woman's/politicians wallets and clothes, and then sell them on e-bay?

>> No.3137776

Politician.

And that's it.

>> No.3137783

>>3137763
the correct answar is fuck the pizza steal the bike and eat the girl

>> No.3137788

Kill politician, eat animal and rape girl.

>> No.3137801

>>3137682
You're an idiot. Plain and simple.

>> No.3137873

Animal
Woman
Politician

Damn i'm lame...
Would offer the politician to tell everyone that he selflessly refused treatment until the other two were 100% stable, for a cash sum of course.

There that feels better.

>> No.3137888

Fucking dumbass philosophy pseudointellectuals

Google Triage and you'll understand that this isn't even an ethical dilemma.

>> No.3137911

>>3137745
And if you or a family member died because of that hello lawsuit

>> No.3137919

animal, woman, politician

everyone lives... why do any other order?

>> No.3137935

Woman first. Ask Politician if he wants to wait while the animal is treated. If not then treat him second.

>> No.3137946

heh, now you see why probably nobody here is a doctor
protip: doctors aren't in it for the cash first, there are easier and less demanding options if you want lots of cash.

>> No.3137947

>>3137745
Priority in emergency rooms is based on severity of injury, not on ability to pay.

>> No.3137955

Politician.

Kick animal, tell woman to get a fucking job.

>> No.3137974

>>3137888
This.

This question is actually seems like someone was teaching medical students about triage and wanted to provide an example.

>> No.3137977

1) Animal
2) Woman

>> No.3137979

>>3137715

Critically endangered animal would provide jobs for care, revenue from a zoo (if applicable), breeding=more for zoos in future=more jobs/attractions

So the animal would provide economic benefits, valuable.

Woman
>poor

Welfare, unemployment, (possibly a lot of kids growing up in lower class(generally not productive))=non productive=leeching tax money from government

Other possibilities statistically relevant based on more specific poverty levels: Drugs (taxless), other illegal activities which tax money is used to prevent

Animal is more valuable
Would save it everytime

>> No.3137993

1. Woman
2. Man
Screw the fucking animal.

>> No.3138007

>>3137993
I say screw em all three
a good dicking will up their spirits

>> No.3138359

Animal Woman Politician

>> No.3139832

Animal then I'd go on a vacation.

>> No.3139842

fuck woman
marry dog
kill politician

>> No.3139850

1. animal.
2. woman
3. politician

You never stated anything about the politician.
You said he had minor injuries, therefore he can just as well be tended last.

>> No.3139864

(Hasn't read any replies)

Is there something I'm missing here? Treat the animal first because it will die otherwise, treat the women next because she will die if left to long, and treat the politician last because his injuries are not severe...

>> No.3139869

A better question is, who would you save the life of? The politician or the woman?

>> No.3139870

Shit, this it a toughie.

Politician goes last, fuck him.
I want to put the woman as going second, as that is the most logical choice, but I don't think I could bring myself to do so. So i'm stuck between delaying treatment for a wounded woman, or letting an animal die.

In the exact situation as OP puts it, I would treat the animal, then the woman, then the politician, as everyone gets to live.

however, in real life, I would treat the woman first, then the politician, as the woman would be suffering and would be more likely to die if treated second.

>> No.3139876

Where did the injuries come from? Why did they get injured?

>> No.3139880

Politician first due to his lack of injuries, and with minor injuries he can assist in the other processes.
The woman because he's not a fucking vet and she is able to be stabilized.
Then the animal. He has no obligation to help the animal since it his not his expertise, but he could make it less critically wounded.

>> No.3139885

>>3139869
The poor woman, 100% of the time.
Any politician that would not give his life to save the life of a poor woman is not worth saving. Any one that would makes the choice easy.

>> No.3139887

>>3139880
>but he could make it less critically wounded.
It dies 100% if not treated first. If you don't treat it first you may as well not treat it.

>> No.3139886
File: 3 KB, 126x123, 1296401026993.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3139886

Fuck the woman and the politician, they are replaceable, there are..what?.. 6-7 billion people on earth.
It is disturbing that anyone would even consider losing an entire species over one or two human lives.

>> No.3139891

Yeah, this is a pretty piss-poor ethical dilemma. Everyone would pick animalwoman/politician, because it saves each life, services the politician, nets the doctor money, and poses no moral problems.

>> No.3139893

>>3139886
>It is disturbing that anyone would even consider losing an entire species over one or two human lives.
1. The endangered animal is not necessarily the hope for it's entire species.
2. So we never see a freckle-footed macaque ever again, so what? I mean, promoting biodiversity is a worthy goal, but not worth sacrificing human life over, especially considering tons of animals go extinct without human intervention. Extinction is natural, and not all that terrible. It's going to happen to us too eventually. It's a question of individual happiness.

>> No.3139903

How about a challenging ethical dilemma?
This is simple, treat them in the order necessary to prolong life. Animal, woman, politician.

>> No.3139904

>>3139893

The problem is that the woman and the animal can both be saved, so there is no dilemma.

>> No.3139913

>>3139893
Sure, its just a fragile ecosystem we are talking about.
I realize there are probably hundreds of sub-species going extinct every year, but still, i think it is implied by OP that the continuation of the species is depending on this one specimen.

>> No.3139920

Animal > Woman > Politician

The politician can obviously wait, the animal is apart of a dying species and it's important to keep it alive, more important than keeping the woman alive, though she is a close second.

>> No.3139923
File: 36 KB, 221x246, 1272299095448.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3139923

How hot is the woman?

>> No.3139929

If I know for a fact that the animal will die if first and the woman will die if last then I'll just go animal - woman - man.

Realistically I'd probably want to treat the woman first, then try to help the animal since the man is going to be fine anyway, and then him.

>> No.3139931

Do I get any pussy out of it?

>> No.3139933

Man > Woman > Animal

Just to shake things up here.

>> No.3139956
File: 8 KB, 240x240, glare5.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3139956

Animal, politician, woman.

Animal because it may or may not possess benefits to humanity as a species. Allowing the species to die off before all of its potentials are explored is careless.

Politician, because he can afford it. He has money, he is entitled to treatment assuming he pays it.

Woman last. People like to think that a human life cannot have a price placed on it, but there are a hell of a lot of implications with that statement, and considering you are using a computer to begin with, you're probably a hypocrite if you think it's true.

Countless people die every day because they cannot afford the basic necessities to live. And yet you sit here, in your air conditioned room on an expensive computer screwing around on 4chan? Obviously, you consider your personal entertainment and enjoyment more important than these people's lives. You stand so far from the verge of death that you have spare time to waste. What really gives this poor dying woman such a high priority, when the ability to help countless others is right at your finger tips and you let it knowingly slip away? If you really thought that death had any real pressing priority then you'd be doing something about it right now.

Don't be naive. If you think there's any proper real world philosophical reasoning for why this woman has any priority, then you're wrong, You're purely acting on emotion.

>> No.3139968

animal, politician, then rape and kill the bitch.

if all women were to dissapear today we´d find a way to be immortal by tomorrow, and proceed toenjoy the wonders of exploring the universe while beingtendedby sex bots.

search in your heart, you know this to be true.

>> No.3139969

1) animal; dies if not first
2) woman; dies if last
3) politician; only one left

>> No.3139981

>>3137652
>doctor
The woman, then the politician.
>veterinarian
The animal.

Were you expecting me to task a doctor to care for an animal?

>> No.3139989

>>3139956

are you trolling?

>> No.3139991

First the woman
Then the politician
Lastly the animal

>> No.3139995

Hi, everybody! This is the OP. I deliberately posed a meaningless question to see how many of you would waste time discussing it. Turns out: most of you!

>> No.3140001
File: 48 KB, 370x499, 2010062202173801_6a0120a721c2d7970b0133f175a69e970b-800wi.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3140001

treat none of them watch the animal and woman die then rape the politician

>> No.3140003

>>3139995
Hi OP!
This is Anonymous.
We deliberately posed meaningless answers to see if you'd believe that you made us waste time. Turns out: you did~

>> No.3140006

>>3139989
Nope. Seems pretty straightforward to me if you think about it. The human life does have a price on it. It's merely difficult to determine what it is as it varies heavily from person to person.

Considering the woman is poor, young, and dying, I'll give you a hint: Hers is probably nowhere near as high as the politician's.

>> No.3140008

>>3140003
Hi Anonymous!
This is OP, again.
I was actually lying about the question being meaningless, just to see if you'd believe me! Gosh, you sure are insecure!

>> No.3140020

This question could have been vastly improved by simply saying "The chance the woman will die increases by (40%) x (order treated), so that if treated first she has a 40% mortality rate, 80% if second, and she'll probably die if treated last.

>> No.3140040

>>3140020
but it didn't.... so it wasn't....

>> No.3140048

Your picture intrigues me more than your stupid question. The inference is that there is a paradox in Pinocchio's claim, but there actually isn't. When Pinocchio claims his nose will instantly grow, he is telling a lie, because his nose doesn't just grow for no reason. Then his nose grows, because he told a lie, but you can't retroactively cancel out the initial lie. So Pinocchio can make that claim and not cause any paradox.

>> No.3140054

New version because op is a fag and made it too easy to answer since there's actually no dilemma in his proposal at all (The politician will still pay the doctor if attended to last, and both the animal and the woman can be saved with mere logic of order).

Who should be seen first if the politician has a 50% chance of dying if not attended to first, and can pay the doctor, the woman has a 55% chance of dying if not being attended to first, and cannot pay the doctor.

If the politician dies the doctor gets no pay.

The animal has a 100% chance of dying if it is treated last, but a 90% chance of survival if it is treated second and a 100% chance of survival if it is treated first. There is no compensation for the animal.

>> No.3140173

Only said doctor can make this decision and nobody else has a right to try to force him to chose what they believe to be the proper ethical/moral/legal action.

>> No.3140180
File: 51 KB, 453x604, n13300530_31130966_1581.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
3140180

I don't give a fuck. I would only care if I was the one in critical condition, in which case I would want to be treated first.

Yes I am egotistical, narcissistic, ineloquent, bombastic, verbose, arrogant jack ass.

>> No.3140181

Animal, then woman, then politician. What is this, Triage for Dummies?

>> No.3140215

You're a doctor, not a vet. The dog's fucked.
Then you'd probably see to the politician while the injured woman fucked around at reception because she has no medical insurance or something trivial.
God damn, guys.

>> No.3140220

Woman, politician, animal.
No one gives a fuck about animals, you know it.

>> No.3140760

>>3139886
>>3139956
Finally people with some sense!