Why Is This A Problem???

[Bradskii]

Having satisfied my rational need to justify the act as good I may now let my emotional side determine which of the two good acts to perform. I choose five.

Yeah. But on what basis does your emotional side make that call?

 

[jacknife]

It's your moniker, not my invention.

Your sentiment is identical to his on doing evil that good may come of it.

I question how you made this leap sometimes thats just a fact of life sometimes you gotta lie to protect an innocent, sometimes you have to hit someone to save someone. Sometimes all you can do amounts to damage control.
While were at this I also question if this is really anything Stalin used or if you arn't just being dramatic.

 

[o_mlly]

Yeah. But on what basis does your emotional side make that call?

If one examines the food and knows it to be good to eat then one may follow their tastes.

Both broccoli and green beans are good foods to eat. I choose the green beans ... but sometimes asparagus ... especially the white asparagus in season. If I'm in Germany and its spargelzeit then I'll order spargel as a soup and a side dish.

On a serious note, there is no truth in matters of taste (de gustibus non disputandum est).

 

[o_mlly]

I question how you made this leap sometimes thats just a fact of life sometimes you gotta lie to protect an innocent, sometimes you have to hit someone to save someone. Sometimes all you can do amounts to damage control.
While were at this I also question if this is really anything Stalin used or if you arn't just being dramatic.

I don't believe that lying, stealing or murdering is an act that one ever has "gotta" do.

No drama. Look it up. Stalin's apologist for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union used the phrase to justify the starvation of millions.

 

[jacknife]

I don't believe that lying, stealing or murdering is an act that one ever has "gotta" do.

No drama. Look it up. Stalin's apologist for the rapid industrialization of the Soviet Union used the phrase to justify the starvation of millions.

A poor starving man steals food to feed his starving family. A police sniper shoots a man who was getting ready to kill the hostages. A man in nazi Germany lies about jews in his attic. But of course according to you all 3 of these guys are as bad as Stalin.

 

[Bradskii]

If one examines the food and knows it to be good to eat then one may follow their tastes.

Both broccoli and green beans are good foods to eat. I choose the green beans ... but sometimes asparagus ... especially the white asparagus in season. If I'm in Germany and its spargelzeit then I'll order spargel as a soup and a side dish.

On a serious note, there is no truth in matters of taste (de gustibus non disputandum est).

Gee, I didn't get a straight answer. Who would have thought. So let me take a shot. It can't have been because you think that five lives are more valuable than one. We've already been there and you've stated your case: 'the value of a human life is infinite ... so 5I = 1I'.

So that one guy on the track - 1I, is worth exactly the same as the five people on the other track - 5I. Yet you choose one over the other? And I'd suggest that all things being equal, you always would. So why don't we skip the maths equation and pretend that that equation didn't happen. Because I don't really care whether you use emotion, logic or rational arguments to make your decision. Because we all know what the decision will be. Five lives are worth more than one.

Which only leaves the means by which the five are to be saved. And the simple answer to that is that you consider it murder which cannot be countenanced. Whereas quite a few people posting consider it a sacrifice rather than murder and it certainly can be countenanced.

Quite simple really.

The only problem for some of us to work out is how people reach a position where they don't consider one life to be worth the lives of many more and would allow the one to die to save the many, but would baulk at taking the responsibility of ensuring it happens in some circumstances, thereby ensuring the death of many.

I guess that's where a dogmatic adherence to a concept of objective morality gets you.

 

[o_mlly]

A poor starving man steals food to feed his starving family.

That act is not stealing.

A police sniper shoots a man who was getting ready to kill the hostages.

What's wrong with that act?

A man in nazi Germany lies about jews in his attic.

A man in Germany tells the Nazis there are no Jews in his attic (for them). Same as when your mom told you to tell the Fuller brush man at the door that she was not home (for him).

 

[o_mlly]

Because I don't really care whether you use emotion, logic or rational arguments to make your decision.

And I do care, that's the difference. You allow your emotions to overwhelm your reason, I do not. Oh dear, Bradski wants us all to be guided by our passions. It's OK to murder if it feels like the right thing to do.

And the simple answer to that is that you consider it murder which cannot be countenanced. Whereas quite a few people posting consider it a sacrifice rather than murder and it certainly can be countenanced.

There you go again with that "sacrifice" bogeyman. The definition of murder is the direct killing of an innocent. Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Does pulling the lever (like pulling the trigger) directly cause his death? Yes. That's murder. Did you "sacrifice" yourself yet? It appears not.

 

[jacknife]

That act is not stealing.

What's wrong with that act?

A man in Germany tells the Nazis there are no Jews in his attic (for them). Same as when your mom told you to tell the Fuller brush man at the door that she was not home (for him).

So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.

 

[Bradskii]

And I do care, that's the difference. You allow your emotions to overwhelm your reason, I do not.

So what did reason tell you about the value of five lives versus one? Ah yeah. You let your reasonable side determine that the values were the same. You even gave us an equation to prove it: 5I = 1I.

But when you had the option to save either group, why did you save the five instead of the one? I'll let you explain: 'I let my emotional side determine which of the two good acts to perform'. And all of a sudden the values were different.

Looks like, according to exactly what you've posted, emotion trumped reason.
.

There you go again with that "sacrifice" bogeyman. The definition of murder is the direct killing of an innocent. Is the one on the track innocent? Yes. Does pulling the lever (like pulling the trigger) directly cause his death? Yes. That's murder.

There'd be no arguments as to whether the technical requirements for murder were present. But there would be arguments about whether I would be convicted if I were to pull the lever. Or even arrested. But that wouldn't be a consideration that I'd entertain in making the decision. As I said upstream, I'd do what was necessary to save the five and accept the consequences.

That's where we differ. God can take it up with me when we meet and I'll live with the decision as best I can in the meantime. You won't risk it.

 

[durangodawood]

Then I am a jerk because I do not hold a utilitarian view of morality and I do not see human beings as sacrifices to the good of the group. Such examples smuggle these views in surreptitiously, and they do not represent reality in the first place. These are known as lifeboat scenarios and they do not represent the conditions in which men and women live their lives. Such thought experiments divorce morality from reality and therefore from facts, reason, and logic.

Why should I take on the guilt of having killed someone by my own actions when their plight is not of my doing, hmmm? And if self-sacrifice is the standard of virtue then shouldn't those people on the track be willing to sacrifice themselves in order to save me from that burden of guilt?

Pls try my alternative hypothetical in post #30 and see if you get the same result before I comment.

 

[RDKirk]

If that be the case, then I take the view that, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of a few. A Vulcan saying as recorded in Star Trek.

That's basic Utilitarianism, which has its known real-world limitations.

 

[RDKirk]

Here's a more realistic scenario:

There's a death trolley barrelling down on all of us and we all have a lever right beside us.

Pull the lever and someone else may live, but you'll die.

Don't pull the lever...


And see what happens.

That's not the given problem, though.

 

[Bradskii]

So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.

Ah, no. You have to read these posts carefully, Jack. O_mlly says 'there's no Jews in his attic (for them)'. Note the brackets. He thinks that if he crosses his fingers behind his back and actually says 'There's no-one in the attic for you' and finishes the sentence sotto voce then that's a get-out-of-jail-card. God will clap His hands with delight that His rules have effectively not been broken. Positively Pythonesque. I see Cleese as the German officer and Palin as the owner of the house. Just change the cheese shop for a nice detached house in Berlin.

Yeah, I know. It's absurd. But that's the length that some must go to adhere to their rules. Maybe he doesn't have to pull the switch on the track either. Maybe he can sorta brush up against it accidentally and tell the guy on the track that he'll be back in a minute after the trolley has killed him.

 

[RDKirk]

Id try to steer the plane to a place where there is no people if possible. If my only option was to steer the plane towards less people then I wouldn’t steer the plane at all.

Intentional inaction is an intentional action.

Some states have a traffic concept called "last clear chance" which places the fault for an accident on the person who had the last clear chance to avoid the accident, regardless of whose action created the circumstance of the accident. If you just allow the accident to happen when you could have avoided it, or mitigated it, you're considered at fault.

This is why earlier in the thread I pointed to the ethical standards of deontology--which Christianity is. The question is always: "What is my duty?"

Deontology often gets reduced to a rule-based concept, which is what some people here are trying to adhere to, but ultimately, it's not simple rule-following but understanding the basic interest and intent of the rule-making authority.

If I believe that preserving life is an interest of my rule-making authority in a situation that no rule seems to apply, then I must directly apply his interest. If in a situation in which different interests seem to be in conflict, then which is the higher interest?

So my authority detests lying but also values saving lives...which is the higher interest? Well, we already have biblical stories of people who lied to save lives and were commended by the rule-making authority for it. That's the solution of the Anne Frank dilemma, already given: Saving a life is more important than avoiding a lie.

There might be circumstances in which duty would demand saving one life in preference to saving five lives. Absent such particular factors, however, if life is the interest of my rule-making authority, then saving more life is preferable to saving less life, and if the choice has been placed in my hands, then I'm expected to do my duty. We have biblical direction (a rule already made) that inaction when we've been given the power of action is also punishable.

 

[durangodawood]

I don't see the logic that the value of a thing is dependent on ... what? Its fragility, its robustness, its whatness ... ? Help me out here.

One way to act that demonstrates the infinite value of human life is to never commit murder.

I'm talking about how we can tell that a person values something: its by what they will give up to preserve that thing.

People could live very ascetic lives (like never driving a car) for the purpose of preserving human life. Life's value is infinite, right? So these finite daily sacrifices would be like nothing by comparison. But people dont do that. By that we can tell that people generally dont value human life infinitely. They are willing to risk life against finite gains.

Dont murder? Thats no test at all. Its easy to go through life without doing murder and fails to demonstrate what youd be willing to give up for the sake of human life.

 

[o_mlly]

So your saying you now CAN imagine scenarios where you "gotta" lie, steal and murder to do good. Glad to see tou've come around.

Ar you reading-challenged? Or did you just want to post a feeble zinger and get "outta" town?

 

[Tone]

That's not the given problem, though.

Yeah, I know, the given problem is who is justified in taking life, to save life.

I'm not, is my answer.

The scenario makes it clear that either the individual will die or the group will die.

Now, if there was uncertainty, I would pull the lever, because the tied up people have no chance, while the unbound individual has a chance to dodge the trolley.

But, that's not the given problem.

So, my answer stands.

 

[jacknife]

Ah, no. You have to read these posts carefully, Jack. O_mlly says 'there's no Jews in his attic (for them)'. Note the brackets. He thinks that if he crosses his fingers behind his back and actually says 'There's no-one in the attic for you' and finishes the sentence sotto voce then that's a get-out-of-jail-card. God will clap His hands with delight that His rules have effectively not been broken. Positively Pythonesque. I see Cleese as the German officer and Palin as the owner of the house. Just change the cheese shop for a nice detached house in Berlin.

Yeah, I know. It's absurd. But that's the length that some must go to adhere to their rules. Maybe he doesn't have to pull the switch on the track either. Maybe he can sorta brush up against it accidentally and tell the guy on the track that he'll be back in a minute after the trolley has killed him.

Ar you reading-challenged? Or did you just want to post a feeble zinger and get "outta" town?

Oh wow @Bradskii you were actually serious and correct. To answer your question @o_mlly both. In my defense the position of "i'm going to ignore reality" to make my system work is a position I assume no one takes i'm not sure where to go from here.

 

[RDKirk]

Yeah, I know, the given problem is who is justified in taking life, to save life.

Thinking of the problem as one of "justification" is the wrong way to think of it. Nobody is "justified" by taking a life in any circumstance. Taking a life is never a source of justification.

Sometimes there is no choice that is "justified," simply a choice that causes the least harm.

Trying to rationalize such a choice leads to further error. Just acts should be pursued, so if we rationalize, say, self-defense as a "just act," then we should pursue circumstances that provoke self-defense (such as in the old "Death Wish" movies). But if we see self-defense as an unjust act to prevent a relatively greater unjust act, then we keep it in its proper regard.