I'm not sure if this group is here to discuss "serious" topics, but here's my bit of controversy. So...a few scenarios concerning ethics and morality. An airliner carrying 120 passengers is hurtling out of control towards a densely populated area. There is not time to evacuate the area and the impact of the pland is certain to kill thousands. The only possible move is to shoot down the plan. Should you do it? Conjoined twins are both certain to die within months unless they are surgically separated. The necessary operation offers excellent prospects of one twin living a reasonably healthy and fulfilled life but will result in the death fo the other twin. Do you proceed? And if you do, do you do so even if the parents do not give their consent? Patient A is terminally ill and certain to die within a week. His heart and kidneys are a perfect match for patients B and C, who are certain to die before him if they do not get the transplants they need but have good prospects of recovery if they do. No other donors are available. Do you kill patient A in order to save patients B and C? If you do, do you do it with his permission, or without his permission? A Gestapo officer rounds up 10 children and threatens to shoot them unless you reveal the identity and whereabouts of a spy. As it happens, you didn't know that there was a spy, let alone his or her identity, but you are quite certain both that the officer won't believe you if you plead ignorance and that he will carry out his threat. Do you name someone--anyone--to save the children? How do you decide who?
