moral dilemma

No, Alexandra, it's not to make people think about what they believe ONLY. It's taught in high schools to CHANGE what the kids believe. If they refuse to make a SITUATIONAL choice, they FAIL the WHOLE CLASS. My middle son's HISTORY teacher took it upon himself to teach this. It wasn't in the curicuulum!

This son's oldest brother came home one day saying that his teacher had told him, my son, didn't have to do anything he didn't want to, not even pay taxes. My husband was quick to explain to him that he was right, only if he was willing to pay the consequences of his actions! If he didn't pay his taxes, he'd eventually GO TO JAIL. If he didn't follow the house rules of our family he would most likely get disciplined in one way or the other. At that point, his car would get taken away from him.

I don't see the children that God entrusted to my care as my PROPERTY. They are a gift of God that came with a great responsibility. Proverbs 22:6 Train up a child in the way he should go: and when he is old, he will not depart from it. If a parent is to do this, then NO ONE else has the right to change that!!

I, in turn, entrusted MY GIFTS to the public school system, but I DID NOT give them free rein! They are accountable to me and to each parent that has placed their child in their hands to teach them academia, NOT morals or the lack there of!

When neither the teacher, the principal or the school board refused to back up MY rights, I removed my precious gifts from their hands and I
taught them as *I* saw fit!

NO ONE, but NO ONE has the right to tell me what to do with my special gifts EXCEPT GOD!!!!!!!!!!

Just the fact that this is being taught in public schools is IMMORAL to me!

Sept, you're obviously very triggered by this, in ways that most of us could not predict. Do what you can to practice self-care, and realize that your past experience is very different than the abstract exercise that Alexandra was going for.

Take care... - this doesn't seem like a healthy thread for you to read

Sweet LMo, it's not the thread, Hon. It's my personal experience. I don't want to get into it with you because I respect YOU and by default, respect your beliefs. But I feel very strongly about this and I feel that I have to give my thoughts and my feelings about it.

I think it would be more UNhealthy to keep my mouth shut. I'm sorry.

I just worry about that vein popping out of your head

Very interesting dilemma.

I would kind of cheat though. LOL

In the case of the train I have to kill either way so I'll choose to kill 1 instead of 6.

In the case of the surgeon, I'm not doing the killing directly, but I agree that letting die is basically the same thing as killing. I think I'll need more infomation to decide. I think I'd base my decision on amount of suffering. Whichever choice leads to less suffering is the choice I'd choose. Otherwise I would cheat and flip a coin and let chance decide!

for the train one save the 6 and for the organs save the one man because thats totally not right to kill him when you totally could save him

haven't read the whole thread.

in both cases you are sacrificing one to save 6.

Case one seems more humane in it's solution and it seems there is little choice but to save the 6.

With Case two, saving 6 on an isolated island is much more complex, but I think, assuming all the organ transplansts would go well and those whor receive the organs would live, the original owner of the organs has the right to them and should be saved.

I guess to me in the second situation, it is a physician making the decision and he/she is bound by a code of ethics to "do no harm" (Hippocratic oath?). By refusing to operate on the first person, he would be doing that person harm. So I think he is bound by his code to operate even if it means the other six may not be able to be saved. It is not up to him to guess the ifs and maybes of what may happen if he doesn't operate on the first person. He needs to take each decision in the order it comes to him and "do no harm" for that patient.

In the train situation, there is no physician's code of ethics, and the decisionmaker should apply whatever personal code of ethics he lives by, perhaps that being "the ends justify the means" or "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one" or "do as little total harm as possible."

I understand the idea behind studying ethics that if you ever get in an ethical situation, you'll be better prepared. Also, it's fun. Here's my question: At what point do our thoughts become instinct?

For example, I learned to drive and have driven almost every day since. I know that I now have instincts regarding driving.

Is there any discussion like this in the study of ethics? Because if there's no time to choose, our instincts are going to direct our behavior.

i believe thats correct Doh... i believe we act out our training ... repetition becomes automatic... like breathing is in evolution terms...

the prob i see is when awareness is replaced with automation... an be very damaing in a lot of regards imo...

automation and self awareness can compliment each other tho i believe....