Thread replies: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2
Anonymous
Lets play a game /sci/ - Hypothetical Situation 2016-03-14 14:01:54 Post No. 7931712
[Report] Image search: [Google]
Lets play a game /sci/ - Hypothetical Situation 2016-03-14 14:01:54 Post No. 7931712
[Report] Image search: [Google]
File: Screen Shot 2016-03-14 at 09.57.44.png (36KB, 478x274px) Image search:
[Google]
36KB, 478x274px
Lets play a game /sci/ - Hypothetical Situation
Anonymous
2016-03-14 14:01:54
Post No. 7931712
[Report]
This is kind of /pol/, however I need logical (logical 4chan lol) to assist.
I have a mega liberal friend who, in the case of this hypothetical refuses to rectify his logical error.
His claim is that all life is equal, regardless of any and all life choices, and that all life is worth saving.
However, he claims in this situation that it is better to split the medicine and "at least try" to save both lives, even if it definitely means they will both die, rather than saving one.
Thus, someone who claims that all life is worth saving, is also claiming that at least trying to save both is worth more than ACTUALLY saving one.
How would /sci/ approach this?
>>
>>7931712
I believe you would go with the one that has a higher chance of success. The drugs in the other man's system will make it hard for them to treat him without first purging his system. Purging takes time, and his life probably depends on a timely transplant.
>>
>>7931712
>trying to save both
>high risk of losing both
It seems less of a morality question and more of a gamblers question.
>>
File: 1457948958899.jpg (56KB, 460x615px) Image search:
[Google]
56KB, 460x615px
>>7931712
The OP scenario is really unlikely, you should consider real-world stuff like it.
Drug and alcohol abuse will keep you off a organ transplant list, for instance.
NOT because drunks are lesser people, but because the transplant is less likely to help them in the long run.
>>
>>7931751
you're right, I was intoxicated when we were debating.
My problem was the fact that he thinks it would be best to attempt to save both lives despite knowing both will die, yet claims that all life in general is worth protecting.
My question was really, to him anyway, how can you possible think that (2 deaths w/ attempted saving) > (1 saved life + 1 death)?
>>
>>7931712
chug the meds urself and go on a 3 day bender
>>
>>7931752
Sounds more like an idealist that has never actually faced that situation or decision. Doesn't matter.
>>
>>7931752
>how can you possible think that (2 deaths w/ attempted saving) > (1 saved life + 1 death)?
https://www.google.com/search?q=triage
You might never change his mind, but try pointing out that the medical community has had to deal with this issue, and the general practice is "save as many lives as you reasonably think you can".
Then again, triage also doesn't muddy the waters with your "who deserves saving more" issue.
>>
>>7931712
Not really any ethical way to go about it, you can extrapolate and conjecture but you get nowhere
Just flip a coin, it's the only fair way
>>
>>7932459
Also, to add, if all life is equal, that's reflected by the randomness of the result
>>
>>7931712
the chronic user of illicit substances will be evaluated as less likely to get a donor liver
I guess save the one that is more likely to live
>lrn2triage
Thread posts: 12
Thread images: 2
Thread images: 2