Ethics for IB ToK. MoralMath.jpg (JPEG Image, 300 × 436 pixels) Deaf Belgian twins going blind choose to be euthanized. Distraught about going blind, 45-year-old deaf twin brothers from Belgium chose to be euthanized because they couldn't bear not to see one another, according to reports from Flanders.
Marc and Eddy Verbessem of Putte died Dec. 14 by lethal injection at Brussels University Hospital. Voluntary euthanasia has been legal in Belgium since September 2002. The doctor who presided over the euthanasia described the twins as being "very happy. " "It was a relief to see the end of their suffering," David Dufour told Germany's RTL TV network. "They had a cup of coffee in the hall, it went well, and a rich conversation. The twins, who were born deaf, had spent their entire lives together. "They lived together, did their own cooking and cleaning. "Their great fear was that they would no longer be able to see each other," he said. He said he and their parents tried to talk them out of it, but they were persuaded to let them die as they wanted. Here's the law and researchers' summary of what it requires: Some Moral Dilemmas.
The Trolley Problem, not in Grassian.
Suggested by Philippa Foot (1920-2010), daughter of Esther, the daughter of President Grover Cleveland, but of British birth because of her father, William Sidney Bence Bosanquet. A trolley is running out of control down a track. In its path are five people who have been tied to the track by a mad philosopher. Fortunately, you could flip a switch, which will lead the trolley down a different track to safety. Unfortunately, there is a single person tied to that track. This is a classic "right vs. good" dilemma. The Costly Underwater Tunnel Compare: 112 men were killed during the construction of Hoover Dam on the Nevada-Arizona border (the "official" number was 98, but others had died from causes more difficult to identify -- or easier to ignore -- like by carbon monoxide poisoning): The first to die was a surveyor, J.G. The False Allure Of Group Selection. I am often asked whether I agree with the new group selectionists, and the questioners are always surprised when I say I do not.
After all, group selection sounds like a reasonable extension of evolutionary theory and a plausible explanation of the social nature of humans. Also, the group selectionists tend to declare victory, and write as if their theory has already superseded a narrow, reductionist dogma that selection acts only at the level of genes. In this essay, I'll explain why I think that this reasonableness is an illusion. The more carefully you think about group selection, the less sense it makes, and the more poorly it fits the facts of human psychology and history. Why does this matter?
The first big problem with group selection is that the term itself sows so much confusion. First I'll examine the idea that group selection is a viable explanation of the traits of human groups such as tribes, religions, cultures, and nations. 1. What about groups? 2. 3.