Saving the violinist

[James R]

One night, you get very drunk at a Hospital Christmas party. Stumbling into an elevator, you accidently hit the button for the wrong floor, and the elevator takes you up to the 12th floor instead of to the ground floor. Getting out of the elevator, you stumble and hit your head, falling unconscious for half an hour.

When you wake up, you are in a hospital bed. A doctor leans over you.

"Where am I?" you say, slurring your words a bit.

"You're in the special 12th floor life support unit of the Hospital."

You suddenly notice that there is a tube in your arm. The tube is connected to a machine next to your bed, and from the machine, a similar tube is connected to a man lying in the bed next to yours.

"What's going on?" you ask.

"You're saving the life of Mr Francione, the famous violinist! Perhaps you've heard of him?"

"What do you mean?"

"Well, you came to the 12th floor, so we assumed you were a volunteer. Mr Francione is one of many patients waiting for a vital organ transplant. In the meantime, the only way he can be kept alive is to be connected to another person via this machine. And you volunteered."

"How long would I need to stay connected to keep him alive?"

"It will likely be about 9 months before an organ becomes available. In the meantime, you'll have to stay here, or Mr Francione will certainly die. We have no other volunteers for him. Only you can do it."

You explain that you were drunk and made a mistake. You never wanted to volunteer to be connected to this violinist for 9 months.

The doctor explains to you that there is no option. Either you remain connected to the violinist for 9 months, after which you can go freely, or you disconnect yourself from the violinist, in which case he will surely die.

"But I made a mistake." you complain.

"That doesn't matter" the Doctor says. "Maybe you should have been more careful about getting drunk and hitting the wrong button in the elevator. It's your own fault you're here now."

---

Note: For the purposes of this question, assume that you cannot get anybody else to take your place. The choice is clear: either you remain connected, or the violinist dies.

Question: Do you have a moral duty to remain connected to the violinist for 9 months? Or would it be permissible for you to effectively kill him by disconnecting yourself from him? If you remain connected, you will be forced to give up 9 months of your life in the hospital bed.

 

[redarmy11]

No, you don't have a moral duty as such, but you might feel compelled to stay on compassionate grounds. I think I would - what's 9 months compared to saving someone's life? But if, at any point, I felt that I couldn't handle it any more I'd leave without guilt, feeling that I'd done my best, that it was a mistake that put me there, and that if I hadn't stumbled in he might well have died anyway.

But I think I'd probably stay, make the most of the free food and see it through.

 

[Roman]

I've always wanted to kill a man....

 

[Roman]

And eat fetuses.

Nice allegory for getting preggers, James.

 

[redarmy11]

And eat fetuses.

Nice allegory for getting preggers, James.

Ah. So this is a personal spat. I see it now..

 

[antifreeze]

nope. dude is stealing my blood. besides, what am i going to do for 9 months? i have a job, rent, a relationship. WTF? dozens of people die waiting for organs, and i guess this will be dozens +1. [besides, i have heard of him and he really isn't that good.]

 

[water]

Question: Do you have a moral duty to remain connected to the violinist for 9 months? Or would it be permissible for you to effectively kill him by disconnecting yourself from him? If you remain connected, you will be forced to give up 9 months of your life in the hospital bed.

If this is indeed a hypothetical scenario for helping a someone:

No. I don't think I have a moral *duty* to save someone's life.
I have a moral duty to help in an extent where I don't think I would be harmed in doing so.



But if the above is just a version for the abortion scenario:

Then the violinist scenario is misleading. A pregnant woman does not actually know in advance that her child will be healthy and talented etc. Even at birth, great damage can happen, and one can end up with a severely damaged child, and not a violinist. Or, things will go sour in one's life and the first healthy, promising child will become a criminal or a prostitute.
It's simply wishful thinking, setting one's expectations too high, to view one's potential child as a "famous violinist".

Take the above scenario and insert "serial killer", "prostitute" and such instead of violinist -- see how many people would be willing to die for a serial killer, as opposed to a violinist.


What is more, the notion that one found oneself in the troublesome situation by *mistake* is misleading as well.

One could claim a mistake only in case of ignorance of pertaining facts.
But there are few women who actually do not know that if you have sex, you can conceive, even despite contraceptives.

Calling upon a "mistake" is just plain playing dumb. If they knew what they were getting themselves into (and they mostly do know it), and if they conceived without wanting to conceive, it is their *fault*, not a mistake.

 

[redarmy11]

the violinist scenario is misleading

Highly. I feel duped. You can't compare the life of someone who presumably has family, friends, descendants with a foetus that hasn't been born yet (much less with a bundle of cells). It really wouldn't make much difference to me whether it was a famous violinist or a prostitute in the next bed. I'd draw the line at serial killer but, since there's no way of knowing what a foetus might grow up to be, I don't see the significance.

If they knew what they were getting themselves into (and they mostly do know it), and if they conceived without wanting to conceive, it is their *fault*, not a mistake.

I'd say it's an accident rather than anyone's fault or a mistake. Accidents happen and it's up to us to deal with them in the best way we can, guided by our own personal morality where it's of relevance.

 

[one_raven]

Then the violinist scenario is misleading. A pregnant woman does not actually know in advance that her child will be healthy and talented etc. Even at birth, great damage can happen, and one can end up with a severely damaged child, and not a violinist. Or, things will go sour in one's life and the first healthy, promising child will become a criminal or a prostitute.
It's simply wishful thinking, setting one's expectations too high, to view one's potential child as a "famous violinist".

Take the above scenario and insert "serial killer", "prostitute" and such instead of violinist -- see how many people would be willing to die for a serial killer, as opposed to a violinist.

How do you know the violinist is happy and healthy?
How do you know he is not a murderous, lying bastard that is addicted to pain-killers, beats his wife and takes sexual liberties with young, aspiring violinists that admire him?

Furthermore, how do you know he will not come out of this with brain damage? Or get hit by a bus the day he leaves the hospital?

 

[antifreeze]

the point is that you don't know who he is. [despite the fact that he is a famous violinist] the question is not about him, it is about you. is a life worth saving for its own sake? there was a time i believed it was.

 

[wsionynw]

I voted YES, but let me elaborate. I'd want some serious compensation from this guy, if he's such a famous violinist then he can afford it!
Seriously though, if you're put into that position not out of choice, but as an accident or even deception then you can decide to either stick it out and be branded a hero, or leave him to die and be branded an arsehole. His friends and family would probably have a few words to persuade you to stay hooked up too, and would you want to put them through his death?
So many questions!!?!?!?

 

[thedevilsreject]

no, its no-ones moral obligation to save one at your cost, does the machine harm your health in any way

 

[redarmy11]

no, its no-ones moral obligation to save one at your cost, does the machine harm your health in any way

Yes it makes you fat, makes you pee a lot and gives you strange gastronomic cravings.

 

[James R]

A couple of people have picked the point of this.

This is a situation similar to the case of abortion.

A woman gets drunk and finds herself pregnant. Is she obliged to keep the baby?

If you think this is different from my violinist example, you need to explain why.

Suppose, for example, that you always knew that anybody going to the 12th floor would be considered a volunteer and hooked up to somebody's life support. But, you were drunk, and although you didn't plan to go to the 12th floor, that's where you ended up. This is analogous to the situation of where a woman, being obviously aware that sex can cause pregnancy, nevertheless gets drunk and has sex, without actually intending to become pregnant.

"She should have taken more precautions! She knew what the end result could be!"

Same applies to the violinist example. Is there a moral obligation to save the violinist?

(BTW, you can ignore the issue of whether the violinist is famous. Assume he is just an ordinary person, if you like.)

 

[Roman]

Ah. So this is a personal spat. I see it now..

But I like James.

This is analogous to the situation of where a woman, being obviously aware that sex can cause pregnancy, nevertheless gets drunk and has sex, without actually intending to become pregnant.

Analogous?
No.
An analogue to your story would be getting drunk and running someone over, and being forced to take care of them. A scenario where your irresponsibility leads to harming another person and you must care for them would be analogous.

Another analogue to your story would be passing out and waking up in a tub of ice, without your kidneys. Guess you shouldn't have been drinking with kidney thieves.

 

[Fraggle Rocker]

"The devil is in the details." These two situations are vastly different when you get down to the details. Every problem pregnancy is unique, you can't even compare them to each other. To try to compare them all generically to a different situation that isn't even fleshed out enough to have details is really bogus.

This is a typical example of the way both pro- and anti-abortionists (to hell with "pro-life" and "pro-choice," this is all about abortion and we ought to be honest enough to say so) oversimplify situations to try to make their points. This is the way all politicians and all preachers do it. Take away the details, leave in a couple of emotionally charged components, and then tell people it's obvious that your own opinion is the only valid one.

The devil is indeed in the details. You can't take them away and continue the argument.

This hypothetical problem doesn't even have details, so it's useless. You had to actually make up a ridiculous medical condition to even make it halfway plausible, so the more we try to add details to help figure it out, the more ludicrous it becomes.

How does the violinist feel about it? Is he conscious and lucid? Does he have an opinion on the morality of forcing another person--drunk or not--to give up nine months of his life to save his own life? If he's not conscious, who is responsible for making decisions for him? Normally it is next of kin. There's a good chance that it's his mother. Does his mother think that he should be saved at the cost of nine months of another person's life? What kind of a life will he have, weighed down with all that guilt? What if saving him means that the other person doesn't get to go to college--or even finish high school, loses his job, becomes bankrupt and goes on welfare? What if the other person had a really promising future and now it's ruined? Whose future is more important?

Abortion is a complicated issue and each case is unique in a lot of ways. To distill out all the unique details like this in order to reduce it to a catchy phrase on a bumper sticker is to render it into pure emotion with very little reason involved. It becomes exactly like politics and religion: nothing but pure bullshit.

Stop trying to make something complicated into something simple. I thought the people on SciForums were smart enough to deal with complexity.

 

[one_raven]

This is a typical example of the way both pro- and anti-abortionists (to hell with "pro-life" and "pro-choice," this is all about abortion and we ought to be honest enough to say so)

I don't think calling a proponent of keeping abportion legal "pro-abortion" is honest at all.
Saying someone is "pro" anything, implies they are FOR it.
As in they want to see more abortions happen.
Fact is, most people want to see as few abortions as possible (even "pro-choicers").
Some people, however would rather it be a personal choice, rather than a legal mandate - thus the appropriate moniker or "pro-choice".

How does the violinist feel about it? Is he conscious and lucid? Does he have an opinion on the morality of forcing another person--drunk or not--to give up nine months of his life to save his own life? If he's not conscious, who is responsible for making decisions for him? Normally it is next of kin. There's a good chance that it's his mother. Does his mother think that he should be saved at the cost of nine months of another person's life? What kind of a life will he have, weighed down with all that guilt? What if saving him means that the other person doesn't get to go to college--or even finish high school, loses his job, becomes bankrupt and goes on welfare? What if the other person had a really promising future and now it's ruined? Whose future is more important?

Can't you really apply most, if not all, of that to James' scenario?

Abortion is a complicated issue and each case is unique in a lot of ways. To distill out all the unique details like this in order to reduce it to a catchy phrase on a bumper sticker is to render it into pure emotion with very little reason involved. It becomes exactly like politics and religion: nothing but pure bullshit.

Stop trying to make something complicated into something simple. I thought the people on SciForums were smart enough to deal with complexity.

See, that's the whole point.
Every case IS unique and has countless mitigating circumstances.
Therein lies the difficulty (if not impossibility) of legislating such a complex issue.
(Not to mention the entire concept itself of attempting to legislate personal morality as a matter of public policy.)
Legislations simply can not take all the details of every individual case into account no matter how hard it may try.
Laws have to be generic by nature and try to be as wide reaching as possible to cover the bases for the majority of people in the simplest way.
There is no way for any law to cover such an incredibly complex issue with a simple set of laws and have it applied fairly and justly.
That is the point.

The REAL debate about abortion is not really whether it is right or wrong or whether people should do it.
It is not about be pro or anti abortion.
It is about whether or not it should be legal and if and when people should have the right to make that choice on their own.
Pro or anti choice.
And the simple fact of the matter is that my own personal view of whether abortion is "right or wrong" is not the issue, but whether or not the matter can be fairly legislated and whether I have the right to take away other people's right to make that choice for themselves.

It can't and I don't.

 

[water]

As absurd as this might sound, I think the real issue with abortion is this:

Should sex engaged in with the explicit intent not to procreate, be legal, or should it be criminalized?

And of course whether abortion should be considered as yet another contraceptive method.

A few years back, our parliament in Slovenia was voting on a motion for the medical insurance law that suggested to treat abortion in the same way it treats contraceptive methods. It didn't pass then.

 

[redarmy11]

As absurd as this might sound, I think the real issue with abortion is this:

Should sex engaged in with the explicit intent not to procreate, be legal, or should it be criminalized?

Water, you're absolutely right.

That does sound (and is) absurd.

Are you saying that you think it should be criminalised? Let's assume so.

Why (let's ignore the question of how you'd enforce it)?

(5 minutes later)

Actually I see what you're driving at now. Well - the fact is that most anti-abortionists would probably say that, yes, fornication should be criminalised, as well as not eating shellfish and not shopping on a Sunday.

 

[water]

Water, you're absolutely right.

That does sound (and is) absurd.

Are you saying that you think it should be criminalised? Let's assume so.

Why (let's ignore the question of how you'd enforce it)?

Because it is the sex engaged in with the explicit intent not to procreate that potentially creates the situation for an abortion.

An unwanted pregnancy doesn't come out of nowhere. In case of sex engaged in with the explicit intent not to procreate, it is clear in advance that should it result in pregnancy, that pregnancy is unwanted.

So in the case of an abortion of a pregnancy that resulted due to sex engaged in with the explicit intent not to procreate, I think this should be considered.

Why discuss only the legality of abortion, but not discuss that which directly lead to it?