I think the answer is '42'

[median]

See http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7739493.stm

Old arguments I know..but fun, just the same

[Trinoc]

Philosophy seems to be the art of looking clever by making up awkward question, in order to look even more clever by appearing to answer them.

[skbuncks]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

There are three questions here which really have little or no bearing on each other.

Scenario 1. No. Unless he volunteers then fair play.
Scenario 2. Just shot the bloody kidnapper.
Scenario 3. I am not qualified to drive a train, neither is it possible to change tracks from inside the train.

2. ARE YOU THE SAME PERSON WHO STARTED READING THIS ARTICLE?

No. Im slightly older and no wiser. Stop asking stupid questions.

3. IS THAT REALLY A COMPUTER SCREEN IN FRONT OF YOU?

Yes. It looks like a monitor, feels like a monitor and works like a monitor. If its not and is actually a talking fish then I have problems and should probably seek expert help.

4. DID YOU REALLY CHOOSE TO READ THIS ARTICLE?

Why is this impossible being called Fred? Anyway, who cares, the illusion of free will is good enough for me.

skb

[lost thought]

Ok I have the answer.
1. Round up all the healthy philosophers.
2. Tie them to the tram tracks.
3. When they have been run over harvest their organs.
4. Don't worry about the ethics it only an illusion.
5. Dont read this.

No problemo I nuts anyway..

Lost Thought
WW

[Pebble]

1. SHOULD WE KILL HEALTHY PEOPLE FOR THEIR ORGANS?

Scenario 3. Yes. Will be lauded as a quick thinking hero.
Scenario 2. Yes/No. No if you cannot subsequently prove that the kidnapper was committed to going through with executions, as that would qualify for murder.
Scenario 1. No. Wilful murder.

Reasoning: Entirely arbitrary. Its what society currently expects.