Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
July 30th, 2019 at 1:41:24 PM permalink
This question was asked in the recent Netflix sci-fi film, "I Am Mother". How would you respond?:

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?

Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
Thanked by
SanchoPanzaAyecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 2:23:39 PM permalink
Quote: Ayecarumba

This 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.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 5714
Joined: May 23, 2016
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 2:27:07 PM permalink
No. The doctor should keep as many people alive as possible WITHOUT purposely killing anyone.
Rigondeaux
Rigondeaux
  • Threads: 30
  • Posts: 2549
Joined: Aug 18, 2014
Thanked by
Ayecarumbaonenickelmiracle
July 30th, 2019 at 2:31:03 PM permalink
+1 to face's answer.

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.
gordonm888
Administrator
gordonm888
  • Threads: 60
  • Posts: 5181
Joined: Feb 18, 2015
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 2:53:15 PM permalink
From a moral point of view: No.

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.
So many better men, a few of them friends, are dead. And a thousand thousand slimy things live on, and so do I.
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
July 30th, 2019 at 3:18:55 PM permalink
Just to take an alternate position: Isn't the greatest "good" accomplished by sacrificing one to save five?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
GWAE
GWAE
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 3:45:56 PM permalink
Does 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.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
Thanked by
michael99000Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 4:11:15 PM permalink
Quote: GWAE

Does 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.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
Wizard
Administrator
Wizard
  • Threads: 1497
  • Posts: 26687
Joined: Oct 14, 2009
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 6:00:38 PM permalink
My answer is “no.”
"For with much wisdom comes much sorrow." -- Ecclesiastes 1:18 (NIV)
DogHand
DogHand
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 1642
Joined: Sep 24, 2011
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 6:24:48 PM permalink
The original question is simply a re-statement of the well-known ethical conundrum called the "Trolley Problem": see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

I would also answer "no".

Dog Hand
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 7:36:28 PM permalink
Imagine the question arising about six animals.
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.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
megapixels
megapixels
  • Threads: 8
  • Posts: 97
Joined: Feb 5, 2011
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 8:29:34 PM permalink
Depends on if you take overpopulation into consideration...
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 30th, 2019 at 9:26:40 PM permalink
Doesn't seem like the few people in the discussion are the only living beings in the world, so sacrificing the woman isn't necessary.
I am a robot.
beachbumbabs
beachbumbabs
  • Threads: 101
  • Posts: 14268
Joined: May 21, 2013
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 31st, 2019 at 7:51:13 AM permalink
No.

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.
If the House lost every hand, they wouldn't deal the game.
GWAE
GWAE
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 31st, 2019 at 8:33:53 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

No.

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.
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
darkoz
darkoz 
  • Threads: 298
  • Posts: 11635
Joined: Dec 22, 2009
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 31st, 2019 at 8:42:27 AM permalink
Quote: GWAE

If 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!
For Whom the bus tolls; The bus tolls for thee
Face
Administrator
Face
  • Threads: 49
  • Posts: 4448
Joined: Dec 27, 2010
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 31st, 2019 at 8:48:42 AM permalink
Quote: GWAE

Why 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.
The opinions of this moderator are for entertainment purposes only.
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
Thanked by
Ayecarumba
July 31st, 2019 at 9:36:01 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

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.



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?
rawtuff
rawtuff
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 342
Joined: Mar 15, 2013
Thanked by
Ayecarumbakubikulann
July 31st, 2019 at 10:10:20 AM permalink
It depends. If we are allowed to play with the numbers in this twist of the trolley problem, there always arises a scenario at some point where you are forced to choose to sacrifice one live for the greater good.
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.
So understand. Don't waste your time always searching for those wasted years. Face up, make your stand. Realize you're living in the golden years
Ayecarumba
Ayecarumba
  • Threads: 236
  • Posts: 6763
Joined: Nov 17, 2009
July 31st, 2019 at 10:25:59 AM permalink
Quote: beachbumbabs

No.

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?
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication - Leonardo da Vinci
ncfatcat
ncfatcat
  • Threads: 2
  • Posts: 363
Joined: Jun 25, 2011
July 31st, 2019 at 10:38:03 AM permalink
Survival 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!
Gambling is a metaphor for life. Hang around long enough and it's all gone.
GWAE
GWAE
  • Threads: 93
  • Posts: 9854
Joined: Sep 20, 2013
July 31st, 2019 at 12:28:11 PM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

remember Jesus died for our sins!



M'kay
Expect the worst and you will never be disappointed. I AM NOT PART OF GWAE RADIO SHOW
onenickelmiracle
onenickelmiracle
  • Threads: 212
  • Posts: 8277
Joined: Jan 26, 2012
July 31st, 2019 at 12:59:07 PM permalink
Natural selection refers to passing on your DNA. Dying is insignificant, unless a being dies before having reproduced.
I am a robot.
TigerWu
TigerWu
  • Threads: 26
  • Posts: 5714
Joined: May 23, 2016
July 31st, 2019 at 1:11:02 PM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

And remember Jesus died for our sins!



But he came back to life.....
TomG
TomG
  • Threads: 16
  • Posts: 2428
Joined: Sep 26, 2010
July 31st, 2019 at 2:15:30 PM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

Survival 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
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
August 2nd, 2019 at 3:19:33 AM permalink
Quote: TomG

Jesus was only half human.

That is typical heresy. In other times, you would be burned on the stake just for saying that! 😄
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.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
kubikulann
kubikulann
  • Threads: 27
  • Posts: 905
Joined: Jun 28, 2011
August 2nd, 2019 at 3:30:24 AM permalink
Quote: ncfatcat

Survival of the species vs survival of the individual. In general humans value the tribe over the individual !

Darwinian selection (the selfish gene) favours saving the one whose genes are closest to yours. Mother sacrifices, scapegoats and the like.

But in the original question, it is a robot who must decide. It has no genes.
Reperiet qui quaesiverit
  • Jump to: