A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

[Punisher1984]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

 

[Door]

Shoot the person who creates stupid situational ethics scenarios.

 

[Punisher1984]

Shoot the person who creates stupid situational ethics scenarios.

It's definately not a stupid scenario - I know that many similar situations have already occured in war-torn portions of our world and seeing how the oceans don't protect us from this type of insanity anymore it could happen here as well.

Now, are you willing to provide an answer? Or just hurl more baseless insults?

 

[lightbringer]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

Since I'm not a moral absolutist, but I am honest, my answer may not be to the liking of some, but, the ten would die.

 

[Punisher1984]

Since I'm not a moral absolutist, but I am honest, my answer may not be to the liking of some, but, the ten would die.

I'm certain that the Utilitarians amongs us would gasp with horror, but don't count me among them. I have an answer to the question as well, but I'll wait until I see more answers to reveal mine...

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Shoot the person who creates stupid situational ethics scenarios.

:chuckle:

Yeah... like we are on this boat and we are all gonna die unless we eat the fat guy or toss out the old lady.

But hey.... stupid situational ethics scenarios are the bread and butter of every "fresh out of college" high school teacher.

 

[Punisher1984]

:chuckle:

Yeah... like we are on this boat and we are all gonna die unless we eat the fat guy or toss out the old lady.

It's easy to laugh when you live a life protected from them by the dominant social order - but what happens when that order disappears (as all of them eventually do, ours being no exception) and you find yourself surrounded by people who have reverted to their Hobbsian state of human existence?

Now, would you care to answer the question?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Now, would you care to answer the question?

The answer is....

You never do evil so that good might come of it.

 

[Quincy]

To kill me and let them all go. If they refuse I would ask that the ten be set free. I don't fear death and would rather give 10 people the chance to live and be inspired by my sacrifice to live good lives and make something good of themselves. If you want to bring morals into it I would still do the same because the less suffering in the world the better. 2 lives compared to 10. Simple.

 

[Punisher1984]

To kill me and let them all go. If they refuse I would ask that the ten be set free. I don't fear death and would rather give 10 people the chance to live and be inspired by my sacrifice to live good lives and make something good of themselves. If you want to bring morals into it I would still do the same because the less suffering in the world the better. 2 lives compared to 10. Simple.

Classic Utilitarian thinking: I find this thinking rather naive, but I see how you came to this conclusion - and it's the thought process behind the decision that I wish to emphasize.

 

[Punisher1984]

The answer is....

You never do evil so that good might come of it.

I'll take that as "I wouldn't play along with the crazy gunmen" - in which case everyone dies. Congratulations, you just got everyone killed.

 

[koban]

:chuckle:

Yeah... like we are on this boat and we are all gonna die unless we eat the fat guy or toss out the old lady.

But hey.... stupid situational ethics scenarios are the bread and butter of every "freah out of college" high school teacher.

What if the fat guy is Michael Moore and the old lady is Hillary? :think:

 

[Door]

Wow, who would have guessed that you would have a pre-packaged response to a two possibility scenario.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

What if the fat guy is Michael Moore and the old lady is Hillary? :think:

:doh:

Is there barbecue sauce available?

 

[koban]

I'll take that as "I wouldn't play along with the crazy gunmen" - in which case everyone dies. Congratulations, you just got everyone killed.

For some reason, you appear to be placing the responsibility for the outcome on the person who has to decide instead of on those forcing the decision and doing the actual killing.


I wonder why? :think:

 

[Door]

:idea:

If I say that all 10 strangers should be shot, you can give your last comment and we can close the thread!

:banana:

 

[Punisher1984]

For some reason, you appear to be placing the responsibility for the outcome on the person who has to decide instead of on those forcing the decision and doing the actual killing.


I wonder why? :think:

Accute observation of you - like I said before I want to see the reasoning behind the answers given, and the only way to truly test their reasoning is to put them in a position where they must hold two sets of lives in their hands and see which one they opt to save. The gunmen are just a sort of "plot device" to help make the abstract a bit more concrete.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Hey Punisher please change your slogan to:

Punishing logic since October 2006

 

[mighty_duck]

It depends on the person being held captive. I would consider their wishes on the matter. If it is a person who would have a hard time living with themselves knowing they are [indirectly] responsible for the death of 10 people, then I would prefer the lives of those 10. I'd like to believe that if it were me at gunpoint, my loved one would let me die to save the 10 people.


If it were my child,the dilemma gets harder. My #1 priority is making sure they have a future, but eventually, they will learn of what their continued life cost others, and may regret my decision, especially if I am successful in instilling a sense of morality in them. But even this is on a sliding scale. Replace the 10 with 2 old men, and the decision becomes easier. Replace the 10 with a million other children, and the decision becomes easier once again.

It looks like the "Absolutists" here will refuse to answer, since any answer will damn their untenable position. Much easier to attack the question.

 

[Granite]

If it's a choice between me, my fiancee, and ten strangers, I'd say it's pretty simple. The strangers die.