The Lottery

[JohnDB]

Moral dilemma come along all the time.

And I heard of a new one but in reality it's an old one. Very very old.

You are walking along one day and come across a set of railroad tracks and a switch. You see a train coming down the tracks. On one set there are 5-20 people tied to the tracks and on the other just a single person tied to the track.

There's no time to cut anyone free from the tracks you only have time to pull the switch or not.

If you pull the switch you are going to kill one person but save the others. You will be guilty of killing one person. If you do nothing the group of others are going to die but you won't have any culpability in their death.

So...this is where the lottery comes in.

There are lots of people who need organ transplants. Hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, and etc so they can live. If we were to have a mandatory lottery of healthy people that we kill and harvest their organs many people will live for 20+ years or more. Sure that one healthy person will die but the other people will live...they will die without the organs.

By either voting for or against the lottery...or even doing nothing you are making a definitive choice in this dilemma.

Which one do you choose. Do you pull the switch and kill someone? Do you do nothing and kill the others?

 

[Runningman]

Moral dilemma come along all the time.

And I heard of a new one but in reality it's an old one. Very very old.

You are walking along one day and come across a set of railroad tracks and a switch. You see a train coming down the tracks. On one set there are 5-20 people tied to the tracks and on the other just a single person tied to the track.

There's no time to cut anyone free from the tracks you only have time to pull the switch or not.

If you pull the switch you are going to kill one person but save the others. You will be guilty of killing one person. If you do nothing the group of others are going to die but you won't have any culpability in their death.

So...this is where the lottery comes in.

There are lots of people who need organ transplants. Hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, and etc so they can live. If we were to have a mandatory lottery of healthy people that we kill and harvest their organs many people will live for 20+ years or more. Sure that one healthy person will die but the other people will live...they will die without the organs.

By either voting for or against the lottery...or even doing nothing you are making a definitive choice in this dilemma.

Which one do you choose. Do you pull the switch and kill someone? Do you do nothing and kill the others?

I've read that scenario before, somewhere, and tend to disagree with the premise of it.

If someone didn't create the conditions whereby people are going to get ran over by a train then they aren't an accessory to their death.

So killing someone isn't what is happening which involves capability, opportunity, and intention. No matter how it's spun, there are third party actors who created this scenario. The person who tied them to the tracks will be responsible for any deaths.

This is a person being presented with a scenario and given a choice to either pull the switch or not. You have to do the best with what you have while knowing that inaction is not a proper response either.

The answer they want you to make is the choice that saves the most people possible while minimizing loss of life.

 

[JohnDB]

I've read that scenario before, somewhere, and tend to disagree with the premise of it.

If someone didn't create the conditions whereby people are going to get ran over by a train then they aren't an accessory to their death.

So killing someone isn't what is happening which involves capability, opportunity, and intention. No matter how it's spun, there are third party actors who created this scenario. The person who tied them to the tracks will be responsible for any deaths.

This is a person being presented with a scenario and given a choice to either pull the switch or not. You have to do the best with what you have while knowing that inaction is not a proper response either.

The answer they want you to make is the choice that saves the most people possible while minimizing loss of life.

The fact that someone else created the situation that is causing the deaths is not the relative portion of this.

How you respond and the conscequenses is the relevant portion of this question.
You are in a position of choosing who lives and who dies. Action or inaction is going to kill people no matter what.

So... either way YOU will have culpability in the result that happens.

You didn't tie anyone to the train tracks. You didn't invent organ transplant technology or the impending lottery either...But as a member of the society in which this happens you have a voice and say in how this technology goes forward and is used.
What do you choose?

 

[Runningman]

The fact that someone else created the situation that is causing the deaths is not the relative portion of this.

How you respond and the conscequenses is the relevant portion of this question.
You are in a position of choosing who lives and who dies. Action or inaction is going to kill people no matter what.

So... either way YOU will have culpability in the result that happens.

You didn't tie anyone to the train tracks. You didn't invent organ transplant technology or the impending lottery either...But as a member of the society in which this happens you have a voice and say in how this technology goes forward and is used.
What do you choose?

Being a member of society doesn't mean people owe deference to all of the goals of society. The answer changes on a case by case basis so the logic applied to the moral dilemma on the train tracks doesn't apply to the ghoulish lottery system for organ transplants.

If I had to make a choice, ignoring all other possibilities, I would not pull the lever and let the larger quantity of people live.

 

[shittim]

Know anyone who wants to but a slightly used 70+ year old kidney?
Best wishes

 

[Blackpowderduelist]

To the watch cartoons or not to watch cartoons, that is the question. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the cartoonish imaginings of self defeating impossibilities or just take a nap.

 

[Lanolin]

Naps win out everytime.

I thought this thread was going to be about Lot.
Turns out not.

wot?

 

[JohnDB]

Being a member of society doesn't mean people owe deference to all of the goals of society. The answer changes on a case by case basis so the logic applied to the moral dilemma on the train tracks doesn't apply to the ghoulish lottery system for organ transplants.

If I had to make a choice, ignoring all other possibilities, I would not pull the lever and let the larger quantity of people live.

No you would have to pull the lever action in order to kill the one but let the larger group of people live...

And congratulations... you made the same choice as the High Priest and Judas. They said that one should die so that many could live too.

I know that it's a difficult dilemma. There's no true "correct" answer as far as I can tell.

I know that I don't want to have any part of anyone's death or life.

Unfortunately...it doesn't work out that way. Butterfly effects are very real from inconsequential choices.

 

[JohnDB]

Naps win out everytime.

I thought this thread was going to be about Lot.
Turns out not.

wot?

A social worker with a natural child of their own has a choice too.

Adopted and foster children usually suffer lives of abuse and lack of loving environments. They end up usually graduating to the penitentiary.

Does a parent lay down their life for the child who will eventually, likely become a drain on society or sacrifice the child and eventually have another child? Only one can live so what should the social worker do?

 

[Runningman]

No you would have to pull the lever action in order to kill the one but let the larger group of people live...

And congratulations... you made the same choice as the High Priest and Judas. They said that one should die so that many could live too.

I know that it's a difficult dilemma. There's no true "correct" answer as far as I can tell.

I know that I don't want to have any part of anyone's death or life.

Unfortunately...it doesn't work out that way. Butterfly effects are very real from inconsequential choices.

I didn't make the same choice as Judas and the High Priest. There's a difference and here's why:

They premeditated their deliberate and conscious strategy to betray Jesus, from beginning to end, and orchestrated together every stage of the act that resulted in the crucifixion.

In the train track scenario I'm apparently dropped into a situation made by someone else and have to make a split decision.

Plot twist: they actually facilitated the reason Jesus came any way which was to die for the sins of many. Prophecy was fulfilled: Matthew 26:47-56

And Jesus layed down His life willingly...

John 10:17-18
17Therefore doth my Father love me, because I lay down my life, that I might take it again.
18No man taketh it from me, but I lay it down of myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to take it again. This commandment have I received of my Father.

 

[Lanolin]

What are you talking about?
are you a social worker??

One of my neighbours was a social worker. She said that she experienced one child dying on her watch and she never got over it.

It wasnt because the social worker had children of her own. The two arent connected. You can be a social worker and also have your own children.

 

[surfer14]

Not all human life is of equal value.
Twenty atheists versus one Christian? I'm gonna save the Christian.
Twenty abortionists versus one random person? I'm gonna save the one random person.
Twenty BLM/Antifa types versus one normal person? I'll save the normal person.

 

[Blade]

There are so many things in this world we read that Christ would look at and say "there is no life in it" . Everything Christ did spoke was truth. Theres no correct answer because its not based on truth.

Sorry have to.. song playing "Our God is an awesome god He reigns from heaven above With wisdom, power and love Our God is an awesome god"....

Was going to say more but.. that song came on and .. nothing else to say

 

[GiveThanks]

Is this the random thought thread?

 

[Genipher]

Not all human life is of equal value.
Twenty atheists versus one Christian? I'm gonna save the Christian.
Twenty abortionists versus one random person? I'm gonna save the one random person.
Twenty BLM/Antifa types versus one normal person? I'll save the normal person.

Interesting thought process. I would probably save the 20 atheists. Hopefully a near-death experience would awaken them to their need for Christ and I could, potentially, save 20 souls. I know where the Christian would be going. Jesus said he came for the sickos.

"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:17

Now if it were between the atheists and my children? I have to admit, I would save my kids.

 

[surfer14]

Now if it were between the atheists and my children? I have to admit, I would save my kids.

Correct choice! If you chose the other, I would have to nominate you for the worst mom of the year award!

Interesting thought process. I would probably save the 20 atheists. Hopefully a near-death experience would awaken them to their need for Christ and I could, potentially, save 20 souls. I know where the Christian would be going. Jesus said he came for the sickos.

"When Jesus heard it, he saith unto them, They that are whole have no need of the physician, but they that are sick: I came not to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance." Mark 2:17

As a Christian, I think you should consider thinking of fellow Christians as a sort of extended family. So just like you'd properly save your kids, you'd also properly save your fellow believer.

 

[JaumeJ]

The Beest Father ever would not save His own Son for the sake of a world of sinners.. I suppose it all depends on where our true values lie., and what we are called upon to do.

 

[surfer14]

The Beest Father ever would not save His own Son for the sake of a world of sinners.. I suppose it all depends on where our true values lie., and what we are called upon to do.

You're not God, dude. If you don't save your own kid, then you're trash.

 

[JaumeJ]

If you understod my posgt you would also understand, the Father not only Raised the Firstborn of the dead, He also gave the free gift to be resurrected to eternal life for all who would embrace Him
So ,

I suppose it all depends on where our true values lie., and what we are called upon to do.

Yours gtruly, the Dude

 

[lastofall]

Moral dilemma come along all the time.

And I heard of a new one but in reality it's an old one. Very very old.

You are walking along one day and come across a set of railroad tracks and a switch. You see a train coming down the tracks. On one set there are 5-20 people tied to the tracks and on the other just a single person tied to the track.

There's no time to cut anyone free from the tracks you only have time to pull the switch or not.

If you pull the switch you are going to kill one person but save the others. You will be guilty of killing one person. If you do nothing the group of others are going to die but you won't have any culpability in their death.

So...this is where the lottery comes in.

There are lots of people who need organ transplants. Hearts, lungs, liver, kidneys, and etc so they can live. If we were to have a mandatory lottery of healthy people that we kill and harvest their organs many people will live for 20+ years or more. Sure that one healthy person will die but the other people will live...they will die without the organs.

By either voting for or against the lottery...or even doing nothing you are making a definitive choice in this dilemma.

Which one do you choose. Do you pull the switch and kill someone? Do you do nothing and kill the others?

As followers of the Lord Jesus Christ we ought to avoid foolish and unlearned questions, knowing that they do only bring about controversy; beside this we ought to not partake in the wisdom of this world which is foolishness with God: none of this which you have conveyed has any lot in that which is spiritual, but only carnal. It is a good thing when we learn not to think above that which is written, that we may keep ourselves from exaggeration and over-estimation, which are unprofitable and vain.