An ethical comparison of a few situations

  • Thread starter Thread starter Dissident Dan
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Comparison
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the ethical dilemmas posed by two scenarios involving the potential loss of innocent life. In the first scenario, where a shooter is about to kill an innocent person, there is a consensus that intervening, even if it requires killing the shooter, is a moral obligation. The urgency of preventing an imminent crime weighs heavily on the decision to act.In the second scenario, involving a boulder threatening a group of people, opinions diverge. Some argue that diverting the boulder to save multiple lives at the cost of one is justifiable, while others believe that intentionally causing harm to any innocent person is morally wrong. This leads to a broader discussion about the complexities of ethical decision-making, particularly in life-and-death situations. The conversation highlights the situational nature of ethics, suggesting that there are no absolute answers, and emphasizes the importance of personal values and beliefs in determining the right course of action.
Dissident Dan
Messages
236
Reaction score
2
What is the ethical difference between the following situations? Also, what would be the ethical possible courses of action (or non-action) in each situation.

A) Someone is going to shoot and kill some "innocent" person. You can stop him, but you have to kill him to do it.

B) A boulder is rolling towards a group of people. It will kill them. You can divert the boulder so that it doesn't hit them, but you will have to divert the boulder onto a path where some other person is standing, and it will kill him if you do.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
What is the ethical difference between the following situations? Also, what would be the ethical possible courses of action (or non-action) in each situation.

A) Someone is going to shoot and kill some "innocent" person. You can stop him, but you have to kill him to do it.

I know for a fact that the target is innocent? By implication, I know for a fact that the shooter is about to commit an immoral and criminal act? In that case, even if I have no legal obligation to interfere, I would consider such interference to be a moral act.

B) A boulder is rolling towards a group of people. It will kill them. You can divert the boulder so that it doesn't hit them, but you will have to divert the boulder onto a path where some other person is standing, and it will kill him if you do.

I don't think it matters how many people are clustered at either of the two paths. I would consider it morally wrong to take any discretionary action that would cause such harm to an innocent person.

But, and this brings up a more difficult question, should I take that action anyway? If one innocent person has to be hurt to save several other people, also innocent, should it be done? That happens all the time in warfare, though in that case the term "innocent" becomes a compliicated and probably not even applicable term. Should one individual accept the burden of doing the morally wrong thing if it's necessary to serve the greater good?

I don't think I could come up with an absolute, universal answer to that question. It's very situationally dependent, and the above examples are far too simplistic to allow a conclusion to be drawn. All I could say is that in the above B) case, even if the scenario was realistic, I woldn't do anything.
 
Originally posted by Dissident Dan
A) Someone is going to shoot and kill some "innocent" person. You can stop him, but you have to kill him to do it.

I would probably interfere. Of course, in the real world it's much more complicated. But if I know the person is innocent, I would feel obligated to defend them.

Originally posted by Dissident Dan
B) A boulder is rolling towards a group of people. It will kill them. You can divert the boulder so that it doesn't hit them, but you will have to divert the boulder onto a path where some other person is standing, and it will kill him if you do.

I would probably probably divert the boulder. Given the information I have, I would have to conclude that killing multiple people is worse than killing one person.
 
Does the innocence or lack thereof of the person whom you may kill matter?
 
from the world of zen

i operate on the premise that i know (my greater or unconscious self) the experiences i want to have during this lifetime.

therefore, when confronted with such situations, i have the confidence that i will respond according to my inner knowledge of my goals. this also includes the unconscious communication with the other participants, assisting them to accomplish there goals.

ethically, in the greater reality, there is no right or wrong, good or bad, only experience. from these experinces we expand our awareness of self and the universe.

these moments, imho, are best viewed as psychodramas being performed for reasons that are blocked or shielded from our conscious awareness. if we listen and/or acknowlege our inner senses, we can confidently accept and cope with any stressful moment without fear of harm or guilt.

each moment in time is as perfect as it can be!
 
Similar to the 2024 thread, here I start the 2025 thread. As always it is getting increasingly difficult to predict, so I will make a list based on other article predictions. You can also leave your prediction here. Here are the predictions of 2024 that did not make it: Peter Shor, David Deutsch and all the rest of the quantum computing community (various sources) Pablo Jarrillo Herrero, Allan McDonald and Rafi Bistritzer for magic angle in twisted graphene (various sources) Christoph...
Thread 'My experience as a hostage'
I believe it was the summer of 2001 that I made a trip to Peru for my work. I was a private contractor doing automation engineering and programming for various companies, including Frito Lay. Frito had purchased a snack food plant near Lima, Peru, and sent me down to oversee the upgrades to the systems and the startup. Peru was still suffering the ills of a recent civil war and I knew it was dicey, but the money was too good to pass up. It was a long trip to Lima; about 14 hours of airtime...
Back
Top