• Flyberius [comrade/them]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      It’s not an equation to be worked out. It simply boils down to respecting the wishes of a currently living and conscious being. Otherwise anyone’s life could be forfeit based purely on some arbitrary valuation of what that life is worth. Why don’t we just harvest your organs and give them to people we deem more useful, ya know?

      • Saeculum [he/him, comrade/them]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        11 months ago

        If I had come about through the unwilling merger of two people, and my death could restore those people, it’s probably ethical to kill me to make it happen.

        I don’t think it’s necessarily reasonable to call the two component people dead either. Death is a not a particularly well defined term, but we don’t tend to apply it to people who might get better.

        Why don’t we just harvest your organs and give them to people we deem more useful, ya know?

        The knowledge that you live in a society where you could be legally killed at any point for the greater good, and the resultant fear and uncertainty probably would cause more harm overall than doing so could actually alleviate.

    • jmcs@discuss.tchncs.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      4
      ·
      11 months ago

      How many people could we save if we harvested you for spare parts? You can’t, or at very least shouldn’t, make moral decisions on arithmetic alone.