A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

[Punisher1984]

What ever happened to heroes?

"Heroes" are just people who behave in a manner consitent with the ideal values of their society under pressure to do otherwise - and one man's "hero" may very well be a "villian" to a man who doesn't share the values he espouses.

We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.

And just who defines those?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Cowards need not apply.

I wont back down

 

[mighty_duck]

I sacrifice those I don't value to save myself and mine, and in the process I attain the power to ensure that the danger can be eliminated to further protect those I value.

If this was your goal, then I suggest you go the route of the "poison" scenario. Even fundies acknowledge that you must do the greater good, and may cooperate if a personal or absolutist cause is the greater good. I wouldn't bet on it though...

Do you put any value in strangers though? Would changing the amount of people (from 10 to a million, for example) change your decision?

If you place no value in complete strangers, would you kill a man to get his wallet (a form of empowerment) assuming there is no chance you would get caught?

 

[koban]

Except the blood of the person/persons that could have been set free had you not been stubborn...

Once again I must ask why the blood would be on Knight's hands?

 

[cattyfan]

So, you are admitting that you find some lives to have more worth than others - the 2 old men being worth less than that of the children? If that's so, you are heading in a direction similar to the one I took pondering this dillema.



So it appears, but I'll allow a little more time for an answer.

It's not a matter of the lives being "worth" more. It's a matter of personal involvement. Those are two different things. The strangers have the same value.

If the gunmen were shooting wildly, I would choose to jump in front of my sister instead of the young mother next to me. But if my sister wasn't there, I would probably still jump in front of the young mother...not because I have an emotional attachment to her, but my personal instincts are to help others.

I would find it just as hard to let a stranger die as a family member...but I would refuse to make the choice between saving my one family member or ten strangers. Any resulting deaths are the responsibility of the gunmen, not me. I will not answer for their sin.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

The greater evil would be for me to actively participate in the crime, which would make me a criminal and add to the tragedy for the victims.

By refusing the rules of the gunmen, you have participated in a larger crime. Action through inaction. If you believe that the gunmen are in the wrong and you are innocent, then no choice by you could be seen as resulting in the deaths. Only the gunmen would be guilty. So then why not choose the path with the fewest deaths?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And just who defines those?

Absolute morality.

Thanks for the softball.

And the crowd goes wild!!!!

 

[mighty_duck]

Cowards need not apply.

Ok, Knight (or Catty), be a hero then. What kind of hero would you be in the alternate scenario I proposed:

Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

 

[LosingMyReligion]

What ever happened to heroes?

We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.

You mean you bemoan the lack of action? I see it as cowardice that you didn't save as many people as you could. You want action but then provide inaction as the solution to the problem.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

By refusing the rules of the gunmen, you have participated in a larger crime. Action through inaction.

Who said I wouldn't act?

I said I wouldn't help the murderers choose their victims, but I didn't say I wouldn't act.

I will not participate in their crime, but I will most certainly act! I will go down fighting in a blaze of glory to the best of my ability. I will die trying to save all the innocent people.

You losers take the cowardly way out, turning to crime just to save your own skin.

Pathetic.

 

[koban]

Survival is not a moral dilemma.

Try telling that to Liviu Librescu, Jocelyne Couture-Nowak and Kevin Granata.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok, Knight (or Catty), be a hero then. What kind of hero would you be in the alternate scenario I proposed:

Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

I do my best to get the antidote to both groups, it isn't morally wrong for me to try to save as many people as I can even if its physically impossible for me to accomplish my goal. Regardless of which group I go to first I have not participated in their crime and therefore no moral dilemma.

I think it's comical that you actually view these things as a dilemma. :rotfl:

 

[Punisher1984]

If this was your goal, then I suggest you go the route of the "poison" scenario. Even fundies acknowledge that you must do the greater good, and may cooperate if a personal or absolutist cause is the greater good. I wouldn't bet on it though...

But the gunmen add an element of urgency to the scenario - you have to make the decision right now and will see the results immediately after making it.

Do you put any value in strangers though?

If were talking about the generic stranger, then no. If we're talking about a stranger that I may know by sight or do business with regularly, then I have a basis upon which to ascribe value to them.

Would changing the amount of people (from 10 to a million, for example) change your decision?

Depends on who the million people are: if they're people from around my residence I would hesitate to condemn them as this would have a significant impacton the lives of the other people I value; if they're all completely foreign to me (let's say, for the sake of argument, a bunch of people from some third-world nation) I let them die as they will have little impact on the lives of myself or mine (besides, millions die every decade in those places - what's one million more?).

If you place no value in complete strangers, would you kill a man to get his wallet (a form of empowerment) assuming there is no chance you would get caught?

Depends on how badly I need the money: to me, cash is only valued as a means to and end - if I have no end that *must* be met immediately, I have no reason to run around in search of more of it.

 

[Punisher1984]

Absolute morality.

And who defines that?

Note: if you say "god" you just open the door to a Euthyphro dillema.

 

[cattyfan]

This is an idiotic scenario. The gunmen are the only ones guilty of wrong-doing. Regardless of the choice made by the person weighing the question, that person bears no guilt...no burden...they would not be held responsible by the law or, more importantly, by God.

 

[Quincy]

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.

All that matters is the conclusion Punisher, the path walked is just a journey. All roads lead to Rome, sorta say?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Ok, Knight (or Catty), be a hero then. What kind of hero would you be in the alternate scenario I proposed:

Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

Hey wimpy_duck, just so you know....

It isn't morally wrong for a doctor to separate conjoined twins knowing that one twin will most likely die in the operation as long as he does everything within his power to attempt to save both twins.

Conversely, if the doctor intentionally killed one of the twins at the order of the parents the doctor would be participating in the murder of the twin.

No moral dilemma!

 

[Punisher1984]

Once again I must ask why the blood would be on Knight's hands?

Because he had the option to spare at least one of them - and yet didn't take it.

 

[Granite]

Then you have solved the dilemma in a very certain way, using a certain moral framework.

How do you think your woman would take it, knowing her life cost ten others their life (or a hundred, or a million)?

She would be grateful to be alive. Any difficulty she had in acknowledging the sacrifice needed to get that done would at least be a subject she'd have time and opportunity to reflect on.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And who defines that?

God.

Note: if you say "god" you just open the door to a Euthyphro dillema.

A Christian Answer to Euthyphro's Dilemma