Skip to main content
Philosophy

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

7
  • There is no moral dilemma in this case. You are setting up a kind of strawman moral argument. In any actual situation the ambulance drivers would not be able to know they could potentially save 2 lives. It would simply be their duty to continue to the hospital (and try to call another ambulance). Commented Jan 22 at 23:45
  • 1
    @mudskipper Of course it's a contrived situation, but so is the Trolley Problem. Commented Jan 22 at 23:46
  • 1
    The Trolley Problem is contrived and morally repugnant because of its stupid abstraction. Commented Jan 22 at 23:48
  • 1
    Even worse for this case, civilian medical personnel typically have a duty of care. Once they respond, they are responsible for an ailing person until they refuse care or are delivered to a hospital (or similar). There are of course edge cases, but this is not one of them once they started transport. If they stopped, they could be charged with a crime. Commented Jan 23 at 3:25
  • @mudskipper I mean, if you want a realistic situation... what do you think about triage? In case of a large-scale catastrophe, with many (more) victims than there are ambulances/doctors available, triage will occur to sort out the victims. The Red Cross uses colors: green => only suffers minor injuries (no need to involve a doctor), red => requires urgent care, black => hopeless. There's a training for Red Cross volunteers where they learn to use their judgment to pick green/red/black. Black is typically a death sentence. Commented Jan 23 at 12:17