Metamorality.

[lawtonfogle]

By that I mean morality of morality.
By that I mean I have a question:
If someone puts a hypothetical situation where you can choose Option1 though OptionN, and if you don't choose, OptionN+1 happens, is it moral to avoid the question by picking some course of action which isn't an option.

Ex.
Situation: you can kill one innocent man to keep two alive, or you can let all three die.

Is it moral to say: "I will remove what ever threat there is to the man saving all three" knowing full well that is not an option and is avoiding the question?

 

[The Nihilist]

what does this have to do with metaethics?

 

[lawtonfogle]

If there is an actual topic 'metaethics' then probably nothing, but I don't know of any and since this is an ethics question about an ethics question then I think the name somewhat fits (ok, so many I should have said metaethicalquestion...).

 

[quatona]

By that I mean morality of morality.
By that I mean I have a question:
If someone puts a hypothetical situation where you can choose Option1 though OptionN, and if you don't choose, OptionN+1 happens, is it moral to avoid the question by picking some course of action which isn't an option.

Ex.
Situation: you can kill one innocent man to keep two alive, or you can let all three die.

Is it moral to say: "I will remove what ever threat there is to the man saving all three" knowing full well that is not an option and is avoiding the question?

It´s completely immoral, it is a deadly sin and it will earn you eternal hell.

 

[Isambard]

Why would I want to keep all three alive?

 

[Stinker]

I think this is what is known as Situation Ethics .

It is when a person (especially a Christian) is confronted with a situation in which a moral wrong must be committed in order to avoid a greater moral wrong from occurring.

I believe that any Christian is forgiven for committing the lesser sin in order to avoid the greater sin from occurring.

 

[CaDan]

Are you familiar with John Rawls's concept of the Veil of Ignorance?

 

[TeddyKGB]

I think this is what is known as Situation Ethics .

It is when a person (especially a Christian) is confronted with a situation in which a moral wrong must be committed in order to avoid a greater moral wrong from occurring.

What is special about these situations for Christians?

I believe that any Christian is forgiven for committing the lesser sin in order to avoid the greater sin from occurring.

Is there a Biblical basis for that?

 

[mpok1519]

heres a good one....if you got rid of every human, wouldn't sin and suffering end?

wait, no, because there'd still be dogs and cats sinning, living together, mass hysteria....

 

[lawtonfogle]

What is special about these situations for Christians?

Is there a Biblical basis for that?

Actually there is. The Bible states that God will always give you a way out. So if every possible action (including doing nothing... think good Samaritan here) leads to a 'sin', one of them must not be a sin else the Bible lied.

 

[cantata]

Metaethics is a very important field.

It's about the way that morality functions. For example, here's an interesting metaethical question: is it possible to persuade someone to act morally by appeal to her self-interest? Here's another one: is moral responsibility possible? And another one: do objective moral principles exist?

 

[lawtonfogle]

OK! So I picked a bad name...

Could a mod please change it to "Is it moral to avoid a question?" or else tell me how to (I can change the title, but that change isn't reflected in the actual thread) so we can just get on with the actual question? Please?

 

[Lisa0315]

Actually there is. The Bible states that God will always give you a way out. So if every possible action (including doing nothing... think good Samaritan here) leads to a 'sin', one of them must not be a sin else the Bible lied.

Well, the thing you have left out here is faith. If God allows you to be put into an impossible situation in which, no matter what option you choose, you sin, then, your only option is to drop to your knees and wait on God to deliver you.

So, in the hypothetical, and I know the thread you are referring to, the right answer (and I did not answer it correctly the first time) is to not choose and instead use the five minutes to pray for God to deliver you and the others.

Lisa

 

[Lisa0315]

OK! So I picked a bad name...

Could a mod please change it to "Is it moral to avoid a question?" or else tell me how to (I can change the title, but that change isn't reflected in the actual thread) so we can just get on with the actual question? Please?

You should be able to change it in Advanced Edit. Just edit the OP, and go advanced, and you should be able to change the title. At least that is how it used to work.

Lisa

 

[cantata]

I think it's irritating to dodge the question, yes, especially when it's a question designed to draw out a specific dilemma. People who make up silly solutions miss the whole purpose of a thought experiment. It's quite an immature approach.

 

[Lisa0315]

I think it's irritating to dodge the question, yes, especially when it's a question designed to draw out a specific dilemma. People who make up silly solutions miss the whole purpose of a thought experiment. It's quite an immature approach.

Well, in the thread, there were three choices: The Man, the child, or not choosing and everyone dies. What the OP is referring to are people who came up with "thinking outside the box" responses in which the psychopath was killed and everyone was saved.

So, I agree that if you are going to participate in a thought experiment, then, you have to answer the question as posed.

Lisa

 

[cantata]

Well, in the thread, there were three choices: The Man, the child, or not choosing and everyone dies. What the OP is referring to are people who came up with "thinking outside the box" responses in which the psychopath was killed and everyone was saved.

So, I agree that if you are going to participate in a thought experiment, then, you have to answer the question as posed.

Yes, precisely, and making up solutions which require the OP to add caveats ("You can rely on the psychopath doing as you ask"; "You do not have a way of preventing him from killing"; and so on) completely defeats the object.

It's fine to give interesting reasons for your choices, but it's simply silly to go off on fantasies about roundhouse kicking the psychopath or escaping and going back in time to save everyone. An ethical thought experiment exists to ask a question. This one asked, Which is more valuable: the life of a baby, the life of a grown man, or the principle that you shouldn't be the cause of a death? Any answer which avoids answering this question is a needless distraction.

 

[lawtonfogle]

Well, the thing you have left out here is faith. If God allows you to be put into an impossible situation in which, no matter what option you choose, you sin, then, your only option is to drop to your knees and wait on God to deliver you.

So, in the hypothetical, and I know the thread you are referring to, the right answer (and I did not answer it correctly the first time) is to not choose and instead use the five minutes to pray for God to deliver you and the others.

Lisa

If you believe that choosing nothing is a not choosing.

 

[Lisa0315]

If you believe that choosing nothing is a not choosing.

I am saying that life and death is not in any human hands regardless of what decisions we think we are making. No one dies unless God allows it. The time appointed for man to die is up to God. Admittedly, God employs our freewill in this appointment, but my belief is that when we are confronted with something that is greater than us, our "out" is always to depend on God for the answer.

Lisa

 

[lawtonfogle]

I just tried the edit and the result was different title in the thread, same name in the forums.