Judith Thomson's violinist
It sounds plausible. But now let me ask you to imagine this.
You wake up in the morning and find yourself back to back in bed with an
unconscious violinist. A famous unconscious violinist.
He has been found to have a fatal kidney ailment, and the Society of Music
Lovers has canvassed all the available medical records and found that you
alone have the right blood type to help. They have therefore
kidnapped you, and last night the violinist's circulatory system was plugged
into yours, so that your kidneys can be used to extract poisons from his
blood as well as your own. The director of the hospital now
tells you, "Look, we're sorry the Society of Music Lovers did this to you:
we would never have permitted it if we had known. But still, they
did it, and the violinist now is plugged into you. To unplug
you would be to kill him. But never mind: it's only for nine months.
By then he will have recovered from his ailment, and can safely be unplugged
from you." Is it morally incumbent on you to accede to this situation?
No doubt it would be very nice of you if you did, a great kindness.
But do you have to accede to it? What if it were not
nine months, but nine years? Or longer still? What if
the director of the hospital says, "Tough luck, I agree, but you've now
got to stay in bed, with the violinist plugged into you, for the rest of
your life. Because remember this. All persons have a right
to life, and violinists are persons. Granted, you have a right to
decide what happens in and to your body, but a person's right to life outweighs
your right to.decide what happens in and to your body. So you cannot
ever be unplugged from him." I imagine you would regard this as outrageous,
which suggests that something really is wrong with that plausible-sounding
argument I mentioned a moment ago.
GO BACK