A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

[LosingMyReligion]

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.

And if you were incapable of this blaze of glory (tied up, injured or remotely located)? You are adding to the question by assuming that such a heroic act is an option. I could similarly avoid the dilemma by saying that no one will die because dragons will fly in and eat the gunmen. But I don't because I know that that is not the essence of the question.

 

[Granite]

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

I don't see how heroism that saved lives presents a problem. Or maybe you misunderstood my point. If anything what they did is exactly at odds with the inaction suggested by others here, which results in the deaths of everyone in the scenario. (Librescu's sacrifice in particular considering his past does not strike me as a choice he saw as a dilemma to be pondered.)

 

[mighty_duck]

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!

OK, but you did not answer my question.

I asked what you would personally do if:
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?

How heroic is it to dodge the question? Compared to charging armed terrorists with nothing but your bare hands, this should be a walk in the park for you.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

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.

Ah, but is morality purely about whether or not you will get punished? Or is it absolute? To me, acting a certain way because of the potential for (or lack if) guilt or burden is a relativist stance.

The question was never "are the gunmen wrong?" but by bringing that certainty of their sole ownership of wrong, I think you've just trapped yourself because you said "regardless of the choice". If you really feel that regardless of the choice the gunmen are the only wrong-doers, then you have nothing to fear in picking the choice with the fewest deaths - in this case your loved one.

 

[koban]

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

Children are starving to death in Africa at this very moment. Are you responsible for their deaths?

 

[Nathon Detroit]

And if you were incapable of this blaze of glory (tied up, injured or remotely located)? You are adding to the question by assuming that such a heroic act is an option. I could similarly avoid the dilemma by saying that no one will die because dragons will fly in and eat the gunmen. But I don't because I know that that is not the essence of the question.

You really are a moron aren't you?

There is nothing that is preventing me from fighting back.

If however, they tie me up, and prevent me from fighting I will STILL NOT actively participate in the murder of innocent humans.

It's really not that hard to understand. :idunno:

 

[cattyfan]

Ah, but is morality purely about whether or not you will get punished? Or is it absolute? To me, acting a certain way because of the potential for (or lack if) guilt or burden is a relativist stance.

The question was never "are the gunmen wrong?" but by bringing that certainty of their sole ownership of wrong, I think you've just trapped yourself because you said "regardless of the choice". If you really feel that regardless of the choice the gunmen are the only wrong-doers, then you can nothing to fear in picking the choice with the fewest deaths - in this case your loved one.

I've already stated, I would not make the choice. I was saying anyone who makes a choice, regardless of what it is, is not wrong and bears no guilt.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

OK, but you did not answer my question.

I asked what you would personally do if:
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?

How heroic is it to dodge the question? Compared to charging armed terrorists with nothing but your bare hands, this should be a walk in the park for you.

Uh... I did answer, not only in that post but in the prior one.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Likewise....

I will not vote for McCain.

And....

I will not vote for Osama Bin Hillary.

I will vote for Alan Keyes, or not vote at all but I will not do evil so that good may come of it (i.e., I will not vote for the lesser of two evils).

 

[cattyfan]

The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

There. Problem solved.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

There. Problem solved.

:Grizzly: cowards!!

 

[Granite]

The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

There. Problem solved.

Convenient--and I thought of this, since I carry--but the hypothetical didn't provide fighting back as an alternative.

 

[mighty_duck]

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:

I must have missed this post. But it is still a dodge!

You didn't answer the question.
Fine, you would try to save both. You have a near 100% chance to save one group, and that would leave a near 0% percent chance to save the other. Which group would you choose to use the near fool-proof method on, the one with 10 strangers, or the one with your love one?

I agree that you are not guilty of any crime whichever way you choose. But you have to make a decision somehow. On what basis would you such a decision? How can it not be a decision based on your sense of morality?

 

[LosingMyReligion]

You really are a moron aren't you?

There is nothing that is preventing me from fighting back.

If however, they tie me up, and prevent me from fighting I will STILL NOT actively participate in the murder of innocent humans.

It's really not that hard to understand. :idunno:

So your escape hatch is that they didn't offer your inaction as one of the options, thus by taking it you aren't doing what they say. But if they had listed 3 options: 1) your loved one, 2) the 10 or 3) everyone, now your previously rebellious action has become an official gunmen-sactioned choice. Now what do you do? By choosing 3, you have actively participated by virtue of them mentioning it has an option. Oops.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Convenient--and I thought of this, since I carry--but the hypothetical didn't provide fighting back as an alternative.

First off, cattyfan was making what we like to call "a joke".

But more importantly the original scenario didn't rue out fighting back, it only ruled out fighting back with the likelihood of being successful.

From the scenario....

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower.

So I don't match their firepower? :idunno: I die trying.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

You didn't answer the question.

If you say that one more time I am banning you from TOL.

I answered your question DIRECTLY without equivocation.

 

[LosingMyReligion]

The problem here is that LosingMyReligion, Punisher1984, and the ilk are apparently too dense to see the difference between believing all people have worth and making a choice based on personal emotional and affection.

So my resolution is this: when the idiotic gunmen present me with my no-win choice, I will pull out my 9mm and shoot them, because I was smart enough to get my concealed-carry permit and get properly trained at gun safety.

There. Problem solved.

All people do have worth but that worth varies. And I think that you prove that point every day. For example, you don't wake up each morning and immediately wire all your money to a hunger relief fund. If you did you would starve. You are valuing your life over some starving stranger. This is perfectly acceptable behavior but it's relative nonetheless.

Also, when you buy a new car I bet you wouldn't pay $100,000 just for the airbag feature, would you? But that airbag has a certain probability of saving your own life or the life of your passengers (loved ones perhaps?). Therefore a price exists at which you aren't willing to increase the chance of survivability for yourself or your loved ones.

Everyday you are a walking billboard for moral relativism. But don't be too disturbed or get too down on yourself. The world has worked this way for a long time.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

I agree that you are not guilty of any crime whichever way you choose. But you have to make a decision somehow. On what basis would you such a decision? How can it not be a decision based on your sense of morality?

At that point my choice would be based on all kinds of factors, i.e., which group is closer? Do I know which location my loved one is at? Which location would be easier to reach? etc. It would all boil down to strategy with my goal being to save both groups.

Of course I would be inclined to want to go to my loved one first but not if that would make it less likely to help everyone involved.

So.... lets say I go to my loved one first, and I can't make it to the other folks in time so they die.

What have we proved?

ANSWER: Nothing!

 

[LosingMyReligion]

At that point my choice would be based on all kinds of factors, i.e., which group is closer? Do I know which location my loved one is at? Which location would be easier to reach? etc. It would all boil down to strategy with my goal being to save both groups.

Of course I would be inclined to want to go to my loved one first but not if that would make it less likely to help everyone involved.

So.... lets say I go to my loved one first, and I can't make it to the other folks in time so they die.

What have we proved?

ANSWER: Nothing!

Knight, those are all relativist answers. You equated distance, ease of reach etc with the choice. In other words, you admit that outside measures of cost play into your decision. You used the words "less likely". Thus you are beginning to use probability in your decision. An absolutist would be frozen by the knowledge of probability based cost/benefit analysis. Welcome to the relativist club.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Knight, those are all relativist answers. You equated distance, ease of reach etc with the choice. In other words, you admit that outside measures of cost play into your decision. You used the words "less likely". Thus you are beginning to use probability in your decision. An absolutist would be frozen by the knowledge of probability based cost/benefit analysis. Welcome to the relativist club.

That's because their isn't anything morally wrong with trying to save people.

Let me say this slowly so you can understand.....

Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.

Let me say that again.....

Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.

Let me say that again.....

Trying to save people is different than actively helping murderers choose their victims.

Do ya get it????

Even the mighty_moron agreed his new scenario posed no moral dilemma....

"I agree that you are not guilty of any crime whichever way you choose." - might_duck