I'm a impulsive person,
I almost exploded in last night's class discussion, a hypothetical dilemma on medical ethics. If there can only be one saved, a 6 year old boy and a 68 year old man, who happened to be a great scientist, what would you do?
I'm not a impulsive person.
The political correct answer is to save the boy because he has more potential. God, the utilitarian ethics is the very basis for a scientist or an entrepreneur has higher value than a bum. Does it make any difference if the criteria is who can live longer or make more contribution to the world in his life?
My answer is that if the old man voluntarily gives the chance to the boy, his will is respected. Otherwise the doctor should roll a dice.
澳门唯一金莎娱乐，It might only be my personal lament, nowadays the relationships of any blood related or non-blood related or social entities are based on benefits, pretty civilized if it's mutual benefits. People are valued by their [monetary] values, smartness, better education, usefulness, or more charitable goals. It is hard to deal with intangibles, so convert it all to tangibles. I am employable because I'm more skilled to contribute to the company revenue. I'm lovable because of pleasure giving, emotionally accepting and house keeping abilities. It's worse for men, all they were asked to prove is superiority in possessions and be relied on.