If I go back to the original situation: 1 healty stranger-donor to save a dozen transplant patiens and what to to:
It always surprizes me why no one suggest to simply talk with the stranger, explain him the situation and ask him, if he would willingly sacrifice his life to save the other dozen.
Is it so hard to imagine that such altruism (or an exchange for a small token of appreciation: commemorative plaque, nameds street/building, etc.) could be realistically expected?
If You force the outcome to be soly on Your decision alone and if Your decision is clear, free and consistent with a specific philosophy, then You must be judge acc. to this philosophy.
Which philosophy is valid in a Least Convenient Possible World?
If everything I do to “humanely” help the patients without commiting murder to the strange ris futile
AND and if none of the patients would be willing to do a self-sacrifice to save the others
AND if the sole and only decision to this situation would lie on me,
then (my clearly idealized) I would teach the donor all the neccesary skills to kill and harvest me to save the others.
If not even that is allowed, then yes—a utalitarianistic murder of the stranger would be legit, beacuse You have trully checked for all options, to freely and through selff-sacrifice try to save the patiens—without success.
Only when You eliminate all humane options can You turn to the “inhumane” (I use thet term loosely—in this case, at the end, it was a humane sollution) - if that brings out more utility/less global suffering/more global pleasure and freedom.
But again—this is not a realistic option. Realistically it is almost certain that a humane approach would become viable before that.
Well, I wouldn’t accept. (Even because I’m quite young and I likely have more QALYs ahead of me than those patients combined; but then again, in the Least Convenient Possible World all of those patients are in their teens and, except for the organs they need, completely healthy...)
If I go back to the original situation: 1 healty stranger-donor to save a dozen transplant patiens and what to to: It always surprizes me why no one suggest to simply talk with the stranger, explain him the situation and ask him, if he would willingly sacrifice his life to save the other dozen. Is it so hard to imagine that such altruism (or an exchange for a small token of appreciation: commemorative plaque, nameds street/building, etc.) could be realistically expected?
In the Least Convenient Possible World the stranger says “Hell no!”
Now what?
If You force the outcome to be soly on Your decision alone and if Your decision is clear, free and consistent with a specific philosophy, then You must be judge acc. to this philosophy.
Which philosophy is valid in a Least Convenient Possible World?
If everything I do to “humanely” help the patients without commiting murder to the strange ris futile AND and if none of the patients would be willing to do a self-sacrifice to save the others AND if the sole and only decision to this situation would lie on me, then (my clearly idealized) I would teach the donor all the neccesary skills to kill and harvest me to save the others.
If not even that is allowed, then yes—a utalitarianistic murder of the stranger would be legit, beacuse You have trully checked for all options, to freely and through selff-sacrifice try to save the patiens—without success.
Only when You eliminate all humane options can You turn to the “inhumane” (I use thet term loosely—in this case, at the end, it was a humane sollution) - if that brings out more utility/less global suffering/more global pleasure and freedom.
But again—this is not a realistic option. Realistically it is almost certain that a humane approach would become viable before that.
Well, I wouldn’t accept. (Even because I’m quite young and I likely have more QALYs ahead of me than those patients combined; but then again, in the Least Convenient Possible World all of those patients are in their teens and, except for the organs they need, completely healthy...)