"I Am Mother" Question
Quote: Question posed by "Mother" robot to human "daughter"...a doctor is caring for five patients, each of whom is experiencing the failure of a different vital organ. Along comes a sixth patient who has healthy organs but is in imminent danger of death from a curable condition.
The question is, Should the doctor allow the sixth patient to die so that his or her organs can be used to save the other five?
Quote: AyecarumbaThis question was asked in the recent Netflix sci-fi film, "I Am Mother". How would you respond?:
WE LIVE IN A SOCIETY!
If you asked me to explain my response, it would be that we have bodily autonomy. "Allowing" someone to die based on your own perverse belief structure is against the Hippocratic oath and an offense of the highest order.
And my proofreading showed me I missed the "robot" status of Mother. I also see it shows no status for the doctor. In any case, even and especially if the doc is robotic, then First Law.
Even from the standpoint of a utilitarian, you have to think of things more broadly. Most people would not want to live in a society where they can be whacked off for their organs at any time so, from a broad perspective, it is not utility-maximizing to scoop the organs.
From a practical point of view: as soon as one of the five transplant-needy patients dies, there will be organs for the other four transplant-needy patients So try to keep all six patients alive as long as possible, realizing that only one must die to save the others.
Quote: GWAEDoes their social standing count? What if the one that is going to live is a life long criminal with no future and no family while the others have good jobs and families. In that case cut the criminals neck.
I'm a life long criminal with a broken family, and if I've a future it's currently obscured.
I've also never been caught and have great relations within my broken family, to the point you'd only know of this stuff if you talked to me. If rolled into an ER, all's you could tell is I'm a dude of the age to have most of his potential still in front of him and a physique to get it done . Might be "of better societal value" to kill the big man instead, before he starts draining resources with his CPAP and knee replacements...
See?
So long as we have free will, you will never be able to judge the value of a man's future, and so long as humans remain non-omnipotent, you can never judge the value of a man's present. And if we can't judge value... what are we doing?
Autonomy is the only answer. Other systems have been tried, but no one can ever seem to get them Reich.
I would also answer "no".
Dog Hand
Should you sacrifice one to save five others?
A farmer, a shepherd would probably say yes.
For pets, the answer would probably be no.
But for pigs?
« Personality goes a long way! »
Remember, for the robot, humans are just a sentient animal.
Face's answer is my answer.
GWAE's suggestion is the slippery slope that has led to (rumored) prisoners and peasants in various dark corners of the world serving as involuntary organ banks.
We're on the brink of generating spare organs from people's own DNA. That research needs to go forward. The moral outrage people have generated over stem cell research is the true tragedy of this area of development. The stem cells of those unborn could be stimulated, with healthy recipient organ DNA inserted, to regrow fully compatible parts. Instead, they are legislated into a sacred waste product.
Hopefully not a hijack because the subject is closely related, but it's the most viable alternative (really, ideal) to organ matching among different people, both from organ rejection and the necessity of the donor to die in order to donate.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo.
Face's answer is my answer.
GWAE's suggestion is the slippery slope that has led to (rumored) prisoners and peasants in various dark corners of the world serving as involuntary organ banks.
We're on the brink of generating spare organs from people's own DNA. That research needs to go forward. The moral outrage people have generated over stem cell research is the true tragedy of this area of development. The stem cells of those unborn could be stimulated, with healthy recipient organ DNA inserted, to regrow fully compatible parts. Instead, they are legislated into a sacred waste product.
Hopefully not a hijack because the subject is closely related, but it's the most viable alternative (really, ideal) to organ matching among different people, both from organ rejection and the necessity of the donor to die in order to donate.
Sometimes advancements in bio genetics is scary. Why do we have to mess with natural selection? In a way we need people to die from cancer, car wrecks, and stupidity. If all of the people that died early would live on then where would the population of this world be today? Could the country sustain this huge ingress of people?
ETA: wanted to add that I think we should save people and continue on with research. Was just playing devils advocate.
Quote: GWAEIf I were affected by something where stem cells would be helpful I may feel differently but sometimes advancements in bio genetics is scary. Why do we have to mess with natural selection? In a way we need people to die from cancer, car wrecks, and stupidity. If all of the people that died early would live on then where would the population of this world be today? Could the country sustain this huge ingress of people?
Damn the damage that discovery of Penicillin did!
Quote: GWAEWhy do we have to mess with natural selection?
Cuz humans went and evolved the ability to contemplate the future.
I'm with ya, though. We've progressed faster than nature can process us; it's like the sapien version of the Carbonifeous period.
Just have to convince the others to give up vaccines, medication, fluoride, chloride, clothing, water treatment, sewage, salt, alcohol, soap, housing, 2,000 years of medical knowledge and to get ready to die at 30 after a life of mostly pain and suffering.
I've tried. It's a bit of a hard sell.
Quote: beachbumbabsHopefully not a hijack because the subject is closely related, but it's the most viable alternative (really, ideal) to organ matching among different people, both from organ rejection and the necessity of the donor to die in order to donate.
I've always thought the most viable option (available immediately) is to allow people to buy and sell organs. Vast majority are against this. Only reason I can see is people think it would mean only the rich could get it done. Solution would be to tax all sales at 50-100% and use all that money to buy organs for poorer people. Which would be even easier to do with such a huge increase in supply as virtually every single heir would want their relatives to become sellers.
In the case of the Robot Doctor, I'm guessing most of us are on the side of don't let the person with a treatable condition die. The more interesting question is, if they simply follow their programming, what is the result?
What if there are not five persons which lives depend on some other being sacrificed but 10? 100? 1000? 1000 000? What if it's between one person leaves and everyone else on the planet dies? There is always a point where moral as we know it becomes irrelevant, the question is where this point lies for different people.
Quote: beachbumbabsNo.
Face's answer is my answer.
GWAE's suggestion is the slippery slope that has led to (rumored) prisoners and peasants in various dark corners of the world serving as involuntary organ banks.
We're on the brink of generating spare organs from people's own DNA. That research needs to go forward. The moral outrage people have generated over stem cell research is the true tragedy of this area of development. The stem cells of those unborn could be stimulated, with healthy recipient organ DNA inserted, to regrow fully compatible parts. Instead, they are legislated into a sacred waste product.
Hopefully not a hijack because the subject is closely related, but it's the most viable alternative (really, ideal) to organ matching among different people, both from organ rejection and the necessity of the donor to die in order to donate.
What if the organs needed their "host" to develop into a viable size before transplant. Would it be okay to let these stem cell generators continue to develop for a year or two, then harvest the organs? After all, it's not like they were supposed to be human beings...
If not, rolling the timeline back, at what point does the stem cell generator become a person?
Quote: ncfatcatremember Jesus died for our sins!
M'kay
Quote: ncfatcatAnd remember Jesus died for our sins!
But he came back to life.....
Quote: ncfatcatSurvival of the species vs survival of the individual. In general humans value the tribe over the individual or we wouldn't sacrifice individuals for the sake of the nation or tribe in war, some voluntarily and some by conscription - And remember Jesus died for our sins!
Jesus was only half human. He died for your sins, so that I may live for mine
That is typical heresy. In other times, you would be burned on the stake just for saying that! 😄Quote: TomGJesus was only half human.
Thank God’s death for us living in more enlightened times!
But more to the point. Do you mean that if only half human, then it’s ok to give its life to save humans?
(I know that was the mentality of English and Spanish colonial ancestors when handling Natives and African slaves.)
Read ‘’Zoo - the philanthropic assassin’’ by Vercors. About the discovery of a species between humans and apes, and the dire consequences of defining them human or not.
Darwinian selection (the selfish gene) favours saving the one whose genes are closest to yours. Mother sacrifices, scapegoats and the like.Quote: ncfatcatSurvival of the species vs survival of the individual. In general humans value the tribe over the individual !
But in the original question, it is a robot who must decide. It has no genes.
