Thinking Fool

That's a horribly misleading scenario. You can think that all human lives are of equal value and STILL have a preference. Thinking people have the same moral worth doesn't mean you turn a blind eye to the type of people they are, or the actions they commit. The fact of the matter is, in that scenario you're losing someone, and that's sad. Since you're going to have a loss anyways, you might as well make the decision based on something other than moral value of the person - i.e. their utilitarian value to others.

Thus, I think the nun and the molester have the same inherant moral worth, but, forced to choose between the two of them, I'd pick the one who provides a positive effect on society over the one who hurts other individuals. See? It's still an easy problem to resolve, without reference to whether or not the two lives are inherently of equal value.

If a child molester/drug dealer/terrorist and a firefighter/nun/teacher entered the emergency room

That's a toughie. They both multitask extremely well.

But what if the child molester was a brilliant scientist that was about to go back in time to kill Hitler? And what if all the boys she slept with were 16 and want to save her life, at any cost, so they can continue getting laid?

What if the firefighter lives and as a result of your treatment ends up developing frightning and uncontrollable superpowers that result in the sun exploding?

What if life is never as simple as choosing between a child molester and a nun? What if the nun IS the child molester?

over_educated, my whole premise is that when it IS simple - i.e. good/bad, black/white, etc... is there really a decision at that point? You can control for these things in hypotheticals. I'm controlling for them. Does that change your answer?

I have to agree with you. I do not think all people are equal. Not talking about races/religions/etc, just what kind of person I am. I believe the life of someone who at the very least contributes to society (by earning a living, paying their own bills, mostly following the law and not interfering with anyone else's enjoyment of their life) is worth more then a moocher who lives with mom and dad (or worst off of government "aid") working minimum wage with no skills, no ambitions, etc.

But then again, maybe that line of thinking is what makes me a bad person. But IMO some people (child molesters for example) don't deserve much of anything.

I agree with First Year - it's all about societal contribution. I mean, do we really want to save the person who collects the welfare check on the 1st and 15th for the last 20 years? Or do we save the faithful taxpayer? I say the taxpayer...we can't afford to lose any of them these days.

I'm not in First Year's camp with regard to societal contribution - a welfare mom can be a wonderful human being. A child molester, on the other hand, well he can exit stage left if a "better" human being needs saving at the same time!

Just to clarify, it wasn't meant to be a rant RE: welfare folks. I would think that no matter the amount of "taking" someone who doesn't contribute to society does they are still more worthwhile as people then a child molestor. Its all relative. :) Ok...soap box over, wanted to make sure I didn't come off as a bigotted ass!

Ok, I keep going back to my first post on the thread... none of this has to do with the people's inherent moral worth. You're all talking about their social value, which, I concur is a relevant consideration in the situation. But how many of you believe that their actions have an actual effect on the natural worth of the person as a human? (e.g., if you didn't know they were child molestors/nuns, would you still feel strongly about one or the other because their inherent worth (i.e. their worth as humans, without reference to any of their prior actions) established that one or the other was the superior choice? Or would you be completely unable to tell, given the lack of knowledge about their prior actions?)(I just put an "i.e." inside an "e.g.". Sweet.)

Edit: TF I HATE YOUR SPAM FILTER, it won't let me use non-cuss words in appropriate context. Please delete the 2-3 nonsequential posts prior.

TF - Well then, are we assuming in this hypothetical that you can see the future as well? We don't know how any of these individuals are going to act in the future. Maybe the child molester will repent, turn himself on, and start a crusade against molestation, maybe the firefighter will go on to spend the rest of his days murdering puppies. If the point of this hypothetical is to punish or reward an individuals past behavior I would argue that is why we have a criminal justice system.

What you are seeing here is a classic Utilitarian argument. Utilitarianism is a moral theory which distributes benefits and burdens in a society based on the goal of maximizing utility, defined as the satisfaction of desire. Utilitarianism is a teleological theory, defining the right as that which maximizes the good, and defining the good as the satisfaction of desire, or utility. Thinking Fool is a classic utilitarian in this hypothetical as he wishes to preserve the lives of the most useful members of society (they have greater utilitarian value) then the least useful members of society (they do not).

The problem with applying a Utilitarian approach to this hypothetical is that Utilitarianism does not take seriously the distinction between persons. Now most of you will respond, "What the f#$#, this whole hypothetical is ABOUT the distinctions between persons you MORON!!!" Not really. The hypothetical makes distinctions, but they are based solely on the impressions of the hypothetical’s creator. The determination of maximal utility is made from the perspective of a single impartial spectator (TF), who represents all the people in the society. In this way, a single system of desires and a single conception of the good operate to determine the correct allocation of benefits and burdens (who will live and who will die). By use of an "impartial" spectator (TF) it seems as though a Utilitarian society must be biased on the side of some desire system. As a system by which benefits and burdens are allocated, Utilitarianism seems bound to take factors such as religion, gender, and class into account when making utility calculations. (Note the welfare mom discussion). An inherent bias toward one desire system must exclude or at least give short shrift to some individuals on the basis of these morally irrelevant distinctions. Thus, distribution of health care according to utility seems implausible and unfair.

This hypothetical is black and white, but not all decisions made based on the Utilitarian model will be. That's why I included my additional information hypos. In this hypo the important person is not the patient but the one JUDGING them. They may have an unfair bias against molesters (having been molested themselves) or rapists, or drug dealers, or Jews. Who knows? All I know is that it is not the role of a healthcare provider to stand in judgment over the "societal value" of any particular individual, and as soon as you start down that road you place yourself in moral peril.

Allow me to return to the child molester hypothetical, since the only information we are given is that the person is a molestor. What is the molester is a buxom 22 year-old female English teacher who had relations with his 16 year old student. Is that an offense that really merits death? Especially if it was a one-time event and that individual contributes substantially to society? I refuse to subscribe to a system of belief that posits the death of hot snatch.

"That's a toughie. They both multitask extremely well."

That literally made me laugh. Thank you. :)

The problem is not what would you do, it is how you justify later the decisions you make. Do whatever you feel is correct, and then work out the whys and wherefores later. It's always better to beg forgiveness than to ask permission. But that justification had better be a good one! In this case, I think it qualifies, because even if many people would choose otherwise, they could probably see why you made the decision you did. (Or, rather, that the ER doc did - I'm not assuming you're one of those rare JD/MDs floating around...)

I'd probably just save the one I was physically closest to, and call it "an act of fate". That way I let the universe decide, and not have to take any significant responsibility for my own actions. :)

Meg, How I wish I were smart enough to be an MD. Now that really would be a rewarding profession and you wouldn't have to bill in six-minute increments! To your other comments, all I can say is REALLY??? You’d really just save the person whom you were physically closer to? I just can’t believe that. What if my hypo uses real people? Mother Theresa is on the left. John Wayne Gacy is on the right. Would you really flip a coin or lean towards Gacy just because you were an inch closer to him? I just find that incomprehensible!

overeducated, I feel like we’re back in Torts class. Surprised Saddam wasn’t mentioned, or was he? :-) I don’t think a healthcare provider should be the judge either, but if FORCED to choose in a situation between one douche bag or one awesome human being, I really hope our health care providers choose the awesome human beings over the douche bags, assuming resources are limited and it’s a total toss-up. In other words, there are situations when a gang banger is brought in and a firefighter is brought in at the same time. Do you really just want them to use a random number generator to determine which person to save? I’m choosing the fireman.

philosopher – I believe people’s actions have an actual effect on their natural worth as a human being. You rape and kill five kids; you’re actions have made you worth nothing in my eyes. If that doesn’t answer your question, I don’t understand your question. But that’s why I’m a fool and you’re a philosopher!

Neel Mehta, Well done. Very well done.

I wouldn't flip a coin at all. But most times (the vast majority of times, even), this situation wouldn't arise. And you can't possibly know who the better person is! The gangbanger might have five kids depending on his income to eat, and the firefighter might beat his wife. How do you know?

In your situation, I'd probably flip a coin and lean toward Mother Theresa no matter what it said. Although she's dead, so I doubt I could help her very much.

I would make the injury of the child molester/drug dealer/terrorist worse.
And I would of course help the firefighter/nun/teacher. Anyone who were to answer differently in terms of who they would help must be a child molester/drug dealer/terrorist themself.