The value of life

[Villain]

There exists a doctor, who saves a life every week day. On weekends, she takes on a persona in the lines of American Psycho and kills one person on Saturdays and one person on Sundays.

 

Lately she has confided in you and has given you the option to decide whether they should commit suicide or not. Their life lies in your hands, what would you chose and why?

[hypervalent_iodine]

You haven't said that this person was a close friend or relative or not, though in either case (especially if they were not close to me), I would probably refuse to answer and contact the police instead.

[Villain]

They aren't a relative, you know them because she saved your life after a car accident. (Please stick to the options if you are going to answer).

[hypervalent_iodine]

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but can't accept the dichotomy you've presented. You are asking whose life or lives would I rather save (assuming that this person would do what I say) where the choice is between a sociopathic murderer (it doesn't matter what they do for a living) or numerous 'innocent' bystanders (I say 'innocent,' because for all I know they could be murderers too). My response is that I cannot rank a life as being more or less worth saving in that manner as I don't believe that it is my position to make that judgement, nor do I think that it should be anyone else's.

 

If I were presented with this question in real life, my answer is that I would not answer, as I have already stated. At best I would say not to, on the proviso that they turn themselves in to authorities. How is that not an appropriate answer to your question? What exactly is compelling me to have to make a choice between the two options in the first place?

[EdEarl]

One should choose according to the greater good. You have not given enough information to answer specifically, because it is possible one of the ones to die on Saturday or Sunday does greater good than the doctor who saves lives during the week. It is also possible that one of the ones saved would do greater harm than the doctor does on the weekend. And, one must weigh the accuracy of ones information about potential future events, in other words an estimate of the future may be incorrect and cause you to make a mistake about whom to save; thus, leading you to do greater harm.

[pears]

Well like Hypervalent_Iodine I would prefer to report them to the police (out of interest why is that not a viable option?) but given the choice presented I think I would want the suicide of the killer. It's interesting because it's almost a variant of the trolley problem and in that case I think I would save the many for the few (if it comes down to simple numbers)

[Villain]

I appreciate that this is a thought experiment, but can't accept the dichotomy you've presented. You are asking whose life or lives would I rather save (assuming that this person would do what I say) where the choice is between a sociopathic murderer (it doesn't matter what they do for a living) or numerous 'innocent' bystanders (I say 'innocent,' because for all I know they could be murderers too). My response is that I cannot rank a life as being more or less worth saving in that manner as I don't believe that it is my position to make that judgement, nor do I think that it should be anyone else's.

 

If I were presented with this question in real life, my answer is that I would not answer, as I have already stated. At best I would say not to, on the proviso that they turn themselves in to authorities. How is that not an appropriate answer to your question? What exactly is compelling me to have to make a choice between the two options in the first place?

 

There is nothing compelling you, I was merely asking for an option and explanation from those that want/ed to answer. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to answer within the parameters. If you can't or don't want to, then don't.

[imatfaal]

 

There is nothing compelling you, I was merely asking for an option and explanation from those that want/ed to answer. I don't think it's unreasonable to ask people to answer within the parameters. If you can't or don't want to, then don't.

 

Hypotheticals like this have always been premised on false dichotomies and are more interesting for the debate, child-problems, and out-of-bounds answers which they provoke. They are also often seen as pretty much sophistry as they are designed to win arguments by unfairly trammelling the discourse rather than providing a decent argument based on agreed premises and logical progressions.

 

That said: In a non-nypothetical I would act per HyperV in as much as I would opt for "something else" and in a strictly constrained hypothetical I would refuse to begin to run an accountancy exercise on the differential values of the 5 versus 2 deathcount; the twisted utilitarian calculus at the heart of the 5 saved per week versus two killed per weekend part is of little interest to me.

 

This is an ethical problem and the answer (for each of us alone) lies in the way we wish to conduct our life. Can I condone, through inaction or otherwise, murder with malice aforethought no matter who the murderer? Can I counsel suicide? With only those two options available I would have to decide that I could not allow the murder at the weekend to continue.

[Villain]

Well like Hypervalent_Iodine I would prefer to report them to the police (out of interest why is that not a viable option?) but given the choice presented I think I would want the suicide of the killer. It's interesting because it's almost a variant of the trolley problem and in that case I think I would save the many for the few (if it comes down to simple numbers)

 

The police is not an option in this case because it passes responsibility to a third party and can stop people from thinking about the situation in favour of a cultural norm.

[imatfaal]

I wouldn't call speaking to a community authority recognized by law as acting under a cultural norm. The option of going to the police is not due to informal or even formal societal pressure it is due to a belief that others are better able to deal with this problem (the police psychiatrist may recognize the classic suicide-reassurance seeking of villain's syndrome - a disorder almost always rooted in fantasy and curable with large doses of cheese).

 

The notion that the police may be able to help and have society's best interests at heart may be false and ideologically driven and engrained; but acting upon it is not necessarily or even likely to be due to the action of a cultural norm.

[john5746]

There exists a doctor, who saves a life every week day. On weekends, she takes on a persona in the lines of American Psycho and kills one person on Saturdays and one person on Sundays.

 

Lately she has confided in you and has given you the option to decide whether they should commit suicide or not. Their life lies in your hands, what would you chose and why?

Its hard to get past the reality of this, that in a real situation, she is bat crazy and you can't have someone like that treating people. Some drugs and therapy are in order. But in the interest of the discussion...

 

Just to make this tighter, say this doc is the only person who can save certain people, no other doc can do it. And we know she will act as a robot, she will consistently save 5 a week and kill 2 a week.

 

On the face of it, we have plus 3 net lives saved a week. But, you also have the damage of random people murdered vs people dying of an illness.

 

I come down on telling her to off herself. There is some selfishness on my part, since I feel more responsibility for the deaths of the 2 than the deaths of the 5.

 

If you change this to she goes out one weekend a year, then I am in favor of keeping her alive. So there is a ratio going around in my head. It isn't absolute, no killing no matter what.

[Marshalscienceguy]

There exists a doctor, who saves a life every week day. On weekends, she takes on a persona in the lines of American Psycho and kills one person on Saturdays and one person on Sundays.

 

Lately she has confided in you and has given you the option to decide whether they should commit suicide or not. Their life lies in your hands, what would you chose and why?

I really hope you are not basing this on a real person first off. Second I guess that would depend. Was she killing bad people? If I knew this women I would probably be tempted to turn them into the police but would first attempt to get evidence. You know so I dont get in trouble for slander.

[Delta1212]

If a person saved a life in the past, they don't get a pass to commit murder in the future.

 

If someone has both saved a life and committed murder in the past, they don't get a pass.

 

If someone committed murder in the past and giving them a pass would allow them to save a life in the future, I might consider it depending on the circumstances.

 

If someone is planning to commit murder and capable of saving a life in the future, they don't get a pass on the murder in exchange for saving the life.

 

So personally, I'm going to have to come down against letting her continue.

 

Even from a purely utilitarian point of view, sure, keeping her alive results in a net three living people more than would have been alive each week, but condoning her actions sets a precedent that saving lives gives you the right to kill other people, as long as you consistently kill fewer than you've saved. That is setting up a situation that I can't help but feel is going to negatively impact society on a far greater scale than three lives a week is worth.