Quote:
Originally Posted by David Sklansky
And if you were as likely as anyone else to need a transplant to save your life you would benefit if the law of the land was to kill at random one healthy person to save five. That law reduces the chances of you dying.
So perhaps the person that is executed for donor harvest is someone who previously benefited from the previous event. All subsequent executions would be limited to one of the previous benefactors, so you'd at least limit yourself to only one completely random execution: the very first.
But doesn't this demonstrate the pointlessness of this scenario? If there was no execution to save five patients, you would end up with five transplant sources, with twenty-five patients being saved.
OT: As for the Donor option on the driving license, I think I remember this being brought under discussion some time ago (can't remember where, or when), that it should be changed to an opt-out rather than an opt-in. But the reason, I thought, was not whether the wording was action vs. inaction, but simply that people are lazy and do not answer questions unless they are required to. You could find out whether the action/inaction wording was significant by asking the question at the end of every driving test (and I'd be surprised if it really made a difference). btw, I think the opt-out proposal was deemed illegal, but I really don't remember any details.