If killing one person who wouldn't be dead otherwise (at that moment) is justifiable to save five lives, then killing 1 million people to save 5 million is justifiable.
One single person can provide enough organs to save up to 8 lives.
Therefore, it's justifiable to kill people to harvest their organs, if you don't do it, you're equally murdering by omission.
It is objectively hypocritical to deny it.
Thus Stalin's industrializing of Russia was a great deed !
>If killing one person who wouldn't be dead otherwise (at that moment) is justifiable to save five lives
How do you know that? What if it's 5 people with down's syndrome vs. one Nobel Prize winning geneticist?
Sweet tankie tears
I see nothing wrong with this argument.
if you even consider whether or not you should pull the switch you're not a good person
but that's ok cause most people aren't
You necessarily agree that Hitler and Stalin were following an ideal standard, thus they were ethical.
The measure of worthiness of life is arbitrarily chosen by other people.
Thus imposing your will over those who disagree is acceptable.
Therefore MY life and my interests are the most important in the world, until someone can overpower me.
>Therefore MY life and my interests are the most important in the world, until someone can overpower me.
Truth is not relative.
And?
>And?
If you killed me, you'd spend eternity in hell. If I killed you, I'd spend eternity in heaven. Humans are not equal and your interests are not the most important in the world.
>your interests are not the most important in the
world.
Neither are yours
Prove it
>Prove it
I've just given you a ton of evidence. You need an attention span longer than 10 seconds to process it.
I'm not seeing any proof. You sound delusional.
Oh, a loony...never mind.
>Oh, a loony...never mind.
Your poor cognitive capacity isn't my problem. You want to assert every single Sacred King and Emperor who claimed godhood in history was a madman - that's your hubris. I'm just giving you facts - it's your responsibility to objectively examine them.
>Oh, a loony...never mind.
>applying the trolley problem to real world issues
don't do that, the trolley problem exists in a vacuum where pulling or not pulling the lever are the only two options. That is never true in a scenario where you have to "kill 1 million to save 5 million". There are always other options.
Brilliant. Too bad people will consider you a retard because they can't comprehend your genius.
Nobel prize is a scam I'd take the downy orgy any day.
>Nobel prize is a scam I'd take the downy orgy any day.
It was just an example - yes, the fact that only former winners vote is a flawed approach - but I wouldn't go so far as to say it's a "scam." Additionally, it's harder to hand out science prizes to undeserving than it is to hand out a peace or literary prize - so I did say geneticist and not "Nobel Peace Prize winner."
you forgot to link your video faggot
Why would I agree with this OP? I'm not a utilitarian.
I mean, I could also say that it is your duty to commit suicide because the mere existence of your rich Western life means that several children in Africa are starving to death.
You're assuming morality scales linearily, while providing no proof it does. All you've done is show that killing one person to save 5 isn't the same as killing a million to save another five million.