Why Is This A Problem???

[o_mlly]

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.

If you read what I posted then you'd see that is not "exactly what you've posted". But the strawman is your basic MO so here we go again. Cleverly, in rewriting of my post, you left out the second step: "Having satisfied my rational need to justify the act as good." Want to try again?

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.

Oh, it's murder -- you're right, no argument from me on that.

The thread does not ask the reader to judge the actor, only the act. If one is not freely willing the act or not fully aware of what he's doing then his culpability for the act may be mitigated or even eliminated but the act still remains evil.

 

[o_mlly]

Ah, no. You have to read these posts carefully, Jack. O_mlly says 'there's no Jews in his attic (for them)'.

Yes, Jack that's good advice. I wish the poster would do the same.

Not everyone has an absolute right to the truth. Those who manifestly intend to do evil are not entitled to the truth and the truth may be withheld from them. While we may not lie to them we may be ambiguous as Christ was when asked if He was the Messiah, the Son of God. His enigmatic answer, "I am the Son of Man" was true but ambiguous.

 

[o_mlly]

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.

Still reads a bit screwy to me. If you value your life then you would live it. If you value your S Class Mercedes Benz then you'd drive it, not park it in the garage.

 

[durangodawood]

Still reads a bit screwy to me. If you value your life then you would live it. If you value your S Class Mercedes Benz then you'd drive it, not park it in the garage.

Youre aware that driving a car inherently risks the lives of others, right? And for what finite gain? A bigger house than the one where you can walk to work?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

Not everyone has an absolute right to the truth. Those who manifestly intend to do evil are not entitled to the truth and the truth may be withheld from them. While we may not lie to them we may be ambiguous as Christ was when asked if He was the Messiah, the Son of God. His enigmatic answer, "I am the Son of Man" was true but ambiguous.

Anyone can tell someone the truth but without sufficient evidence to back the truth up why should anyone believe it even if it is true? Why would God who wants everyone to find the truth (1 Tim 2:3-4) not give the evidence for the truth to everyone?

If one of my kids was going down a path of destruction such as drug use, I would certainly tell them the truth to help them avoid that destruction. I would not be ambiguous about what their drug use will lead to.

 

[The happy Objectivist]

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

Well, that's a somewhat more plausible scenario but there is a problem. There is a very important context that is being dropped, i.e., a chosen obligation vs. an unchosen obligation. If I am a flight attendant then I have an obligation, before I take the job, to think and to understand the responsibility I would be undertaking in accepting the position and the training. If I don't wish to take on that responsibility then I shouldn't become a flight attendant.

But let's step back and think in terms of principle. The implicit principle you are smuggling in is that someone else's need places a moral obligation on me. But this principle can not be followed. It's impractical and therefore irrational. Every second of every day there is someone dying of starvation or disease or run over by a truck that could be saved and if I do not save them under your principle I am an immoral person. In order to be analogous to your first scenario, we have to recognize the context of proximity. There are always people in my immediate surroundings who are in need and I can help them if I choose but I am not obligated to. because if we remove choice from the context then there is no such thing as morality. If we can not choose our actions then there can be no discussion of what one should do.

 

[durangodawood]

Well, that's a somewhat more plausible scenario but there is a problem. There is a very important context that is being dropped, i.e., a chosen obligation vs. an unchosen obligation. If I am a flight attendant then I have an obligation, before I take the job, to think and to understand the responsibility I would be undertaking in accepting the position and the training. If I don't wish to take on that responsibility then I shouldn't become a flight attendant.

But let's step back and think in terms of principle. The implicit principle you are smuggling in is that someone else's need places a moral obligation on me. But this principle can not be followed. It's impractical and therefore irrational. Every second of every day there is someone dying of starvation or disease or run over by a truck that could be saved and if I do not save them under your principle I am an immoral person. In order to be analogous to your first scenario, we have to recognize the context of proximity. There are always people in my immediate surroundings who are in need and I can help them if I choose but I am not obligated to. because if we remove choice from the context then there is no such thing as morality. If we can not choose our actions then there can be no discussion of what one should do.

Where's the sacrifice of you in either the plane or trolley scenario? I'm not seeing it at all. No ones asking you to jump on the tracks or even stick out your small toe. And the plane is going down regardless. So I dont see here this implicit principle you object to.

 

[o_mlly]

Youre aware that driving a car inherently risks the lives of others, right?

So does not driving the car. Your home bound 90 year old mom says, "Son, I need my heart meds refilled. Will you drive to the pharmacy and pick them up for me?" You say, "How could you ask me to do that ... you know how dangerous driving is, don't you? Where do you want me to bury you?"

 

[RDKirk]

So does not driving the car. Your home bound 90 year old mom says, "Son, I need my heart meds refilled. Will you drive to the pharmacy and pick them up for me?" You say, "How could you ask me to do that ... you know how dangerous driving is, don't you? Where do you want me to bury you?"

Pharmacies deliver these days. I get all my meds in the mail.

 

[durangodawood]

So does not driving the car. Your home bound 90 year old mom says, "Son, I need my heart meds refilled. Will you drive to the pharmacy and pick them up for me?" You say, "How could you ask me to do that ... you know how dangerous driving is, don't you? Where do you want me to bury you?"

There's other ways to arrange life so we dont risk an infinite loss.

Our whole society would never have gone along with an automobile centric way of life if human life had infinite value to us. Human life is valuable for sure, but its a finite value to us. Thats the only we we can weigh it against other finite values, like convenience, pleasure, and additional material prosperity. 30,000 +/- dead each year is worth it for us.

 

[o_mlly]

If one of my kids was going down a path of destruction such as drug use, I would certainly tell them the truth to help them avoid that destruction. I would not be ambiguous about what their drug use will lead to.

? Not sure I get your point. Of course, there is no need to withhold the truth from those who will benefit themselves or others in knowing it.

 

[o_mlly]

Pharmacies deliver these days. I get all my meds in the mail.

Then change "meds" to whatever it is that poor old mom needs to stay alive, eg, oxygen tanks?

 

[Clizby WampusCat]

? Not sure I get your point. Of course, there is no need to withhold the truth from those who will benefit themselves or others in knowing it.

Then why do you believe God withholds truth from some of us? Knowing my destruction is coming would be beneficial to me or anybody.

 

[o_mlly]

Human life is valuable for sure, but its a finite value to us.

Well, good for you. Only glad you're not responsible for my care. "Well o_mlly, looks like you passed my threshold to keep you alive. Where do you want to be buried?"

Our whole society would never have gone along with an automobile centric way of life if human life had infinite value to us.

Sorry, but I think the attempt at valuing the quality of life to life itself is just nonsense because the two are categorically different. Absent life, there is naught against which to measure its value. It is infinitely better to have lived the worst life possible than to have never lived at all. You, as a non-believer, may think otherwise. I do not.

 

[o_mlly]

Then why do you believe God withholds truth from some of us? Knowing my destruction is coming would be beneficial to me or anybody.

Drifting off-topic. Probably need a new thread to pursue.

 

[durangodawood]

Sorry, but I think the attempt at valuing the quality of life to life itself is just nonsense because the two are categorically different. Absent life, there is naught against which to measure its value. It is infinitely better to have lived the worst life possible than to have never lived at all. You, as a non-believer, may think otherwise. I do not.

Not true. People have the opportunity to weigh them against each other all the time. And they do it.

If you were right, then what does it mean that human life has infinite value - if that value has no effect on the way we structure our lives? It would be a dead abstraction. Just words. (Which is what I think it is.)

 

[o_mlly]

Not true. People have the opportunity to weigh them against each other all the time. And they do it.

If you were right, then what does it mean that human life has infinite value - if that value has no effect on the way we structure our lives? It would be a dead abstraction. Just words. (Which is what I think it is.)

So you value human life against driving at 30,000 lives. Why not 30,001 lives?

 

[Tone]

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.

But, according to the scenario you have to think of justification, that's the point.

If you're not, I have to say to you "That's not the given problem, though."

 

[RDKirk]

Because those are the facts of the situation. If those facts dont matter to you, well ok. But I think they should matter.

Its right to steer danger toward the least populated area you can.

"Justification" is at issue only in specific versions of deontology.

Some situations are a matter of "least wrong." But "least wrong" does not equal "right."

The idea that "least wrong" equals "right" is a path that can lead to serious error.

 

[durangodawood]

"Justification" is at issue only in specific versions of deontology.

Some situations are a matter of "least wrong." But "least wrong" does not equal "right."

The idea that "least wrong" equals "right" is a path that can lead to serious error.

Steering danger toward the least populated area possible is not the least-wrong thing to do. The agent here has done nothing wrong at all from beginning to end of these hypotheticals. The wrongs occurred upstream of you in each case.