Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

[DaveC426913]

This one is easy. As the captian of a boat, you are responsible for the people on your boat. The occupants on 'your" boat are your responsibilty. You have no choice other than blowing up the other boat and saving your people. Blowing up your people would be the ulitimate betrayal.

Look at the corollary: Does "I'm the captain so these people are my responsibility" really justify a captain deliberately and actively murdering 1500 innocent people?

There are no qualifiers to the above question - no "well if that was the only way..." doesn't cut it. That captain would have to decide to kill 1500 innocent people - with no assurances but a madman that his ship is doomed. What if the madman turned out to be lying?

 

[superwolf]

if you were to flip the switch then you're the one that's choosing to kill those other people - what gives you the right to decide that your lives are worth more than theirs?

because 1000 lives are worth more than 500?

It's either 500, 1000 or 1500. To me the choice is obvious.

 

[superwolf]

How about this one:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the doctor.

 

[DaveC426913]

because 1000 lives are worth more than 500?

It's either 500, 1000 or 1500. To me the choice is obvious.

You are thinking inside the box.

The choice is not "500, 100 or 1500", the choice is do I kill people with my own hands or do I choose not to".

 

[superwolf]

This one is easy. As the captain of a boat, you are responsible for the people on your boat. The occupants on "your" boat are your responsibilty.

That is, easy from a specific normative theory. An utilitarian will argue that it's immoral of the captain of the boat with 500 passengers to blow the other boat up. Ethics isn't science.

 

[DaveC426913]

How about this one:

A brilliant transplant surgeon has five patients, each in need of a different organ, each of whom will die without that organ. Unfortunately, there are no organs available to perform any of these five transplant operations. A healthy young traveler, just passing through the city the doctor works in, comes in for a routine checkup. In the course of doing the checkup, the doctor discovers that his organs are compatible with all five of his dying patients. Suppose further that if the young man were to disappear, no-one would suspect the doctor.

Here's an even better one. Your answer to mine will be your answer to yours as well.

If you were on a business trip away from your wife and had the opportunity to have an affair with someone really hot. You knew with 100% certainty that you could not be caught and your wife would never find out.

Do you do the deed?



'Character' is what you are when no one is looking.

.

 

[Pengwuino]

No he is not.

He is in a situation at the hands of a madman who has put thosuands of lives in danger (with the mere presence of the explosives, regardless what happens), told him a bunch of things, and then offered him a means to kill 500 people.


It would be immoral to blow up 500 people. Period.

I tend to disagree with this. At some point, even real life situations come down to a "vacuum" situation, where you are unable to gather more information about what is going down, a decision has to be made, and you only have to go on what you know. In the situation presented, all you know is that you are presented with the situation and must make a decision. You have no way of telling what the reality of the situation is and you have no idea what the outcome will be. All you know and all that you're allowed to know is that the person who has setup the situation has set it up such that you have the choice of killing your 500 people or their 1000 people. At that point, it's entirely about is 1000 lives worth more then 500 lives.

Now I've seen that point argued back and forth and in my opinion, whether its "no one mans life is worth more then another" or "all life is priceless", no matter what value you put on a life, how is killing 1000 people better or equal, to killing 500? I think it's immoral to kill the 1000 or let both ships possibly be blown up.

If you even TRY to take it out of a vacuum, and for example, say "what if the evil doer actually wouldn't kill anyone if neither ship blew the other one up?", you CAN'T know that information, thus any moral responsibility to do nothing doesn't exist in my opinion.

 

[russ_watters]

This is similar to a thread I made called morality of passive/active. I was trying to argue that it would be moral to blow the boat with 5000 up and ultimately save 1000 peoples lives. This is a utilitarian perspective, which most people here disagreed with...

To be a little more specific, modern western philosophy - the basis of western laws - rejects the utilitarian perspective. Taking an affirmative action that directly causes the deaths of others is morally wrong under the perspective of individual rights.

I disagree. He is in a situation in which people will die no matter what. It will be immoral not to choose an action to minimize the number of dead people. He is not killing people. He has to choose between killing 500 and 1500.

That's another way of stating the utilitarian perspective and it is rejected in western philosophy because instead of the Joker making the choice of who dies alone, the captain is participating in the decision making. That makes him partially culpable.

Now odds are that a jury might feel sorry for him, but to acquit him wouldn't be consistent with how the law is intended to work. But even if acquitted, he'd probably lose a wrongful death suit in civil court.

 

[Evo]

Look at the corollary: Does "I'm the captain so these people are my responsibility" really justify a captain deliberately and actively murdering 1500 innocent people?

There are no qualifiers to the above question - no "well if that was the only way..." doesn't cut it. That captain would have to decide to kill 1500 innocent people - with no assurances but a madman that his ship is doomed. What if the madman turned out to be lying?

Actually I agree with your argument that acting based on something someone says would be wrong. What if it was an empty threat? What if it was some test of loyalty and the person never actually intended the person to actually kill anyone?

But a captain is responsible first for the welfare of his people. So a captain's first priority is the protection of his own people.

Should a sergeant in the military kill his own men in order to save a larger number of the enemy? Don't we hold our leaders responsible for our well being?

But this is why I should stay out of philosophy, you have to forget reality in order to not let facts get in the way.

 

[Cyrus]

LoL ITS JUST A MOVIE!

What if killer zombie cows with laser beams come at us?

 

[russ_watters]

There's a similair one we ask (smug) new medical students.

Q>Is it better to save one life or six?
A>Six, they all parrot.
Q>So if you see a healthy jogger go past the hospital you should kill him and use heart/lungs/kidneys/liver to save 6 patients?

This is a good example of where the utilitarian principle can lead. It is a long slippery slope but it is also the logic used by people like Stalin who "restructured" the Soviet economy from an agrarian to a manufacturing economy...and oh, by the way, killed 25 million people in order to benefit the other 300 million. This is abhorrent in western philosophy.

 

[russ_watters]

This one is easy. As the captain of a boat, you are responsible for the people on your boat. The occupants on "your" boat are your responsibilty. You have no choice other than blowing up the other boat and saving your people.

The obligations of a ship's captain do not exist in a vacuum. The captain is still bound by the laws of whatever jurisdiction he's in. The people on his ship may be his first responsibility, but they aren't his only responsibility.

 

[Pengwuino]

This is a good example of where the utilitarian principle can lead. It is a long slippery slope but it is also the logic used by people like Stalin who "restructured" the Soviet economy from an agrarian to a manufacturing economy...and oh, by the way, killed 25 million people in order to benefit the other 300 million. This is abhorrent in western philosophy.

That's misusing the logic though, not showing that it's bad. Killing 25 million to simply improve the lives of 300 million isn't the same as killing 25 million to save the lives of 300 million.

I personally feel society feels its somehow immoral to kill people to save the lives of others... yet we have had wars that everyone feels were completely justified. The best example is WW2, we as a society sent people out to their deaths knowing that if we did not, far more people would die. Does anyone feel it was immoral to do so? I've never heard a person say so or argue such.

 

[superwolf]

No he is not.
It would be immoral to blow up 500 people. Period.

Not if the only alternative is blowing up 1500.

 

[Cyrus]

What if both boats crash into each other? Kaboom.

 

[Pengwuino]

What if both boats crash into each other? Kaboom.

Then the manufacturer of the navigation system is immoral. Or something.

 

[superwolf]

You are thinking inside the box.

That was the intention of this thread.

The choice is not "500, 100 or 1500", the choice is do I kill people with my own hands or do I choose not to".

There is no moral difference as long as the outcome of passivity is known.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

LoL ITS JUST A MOVIE!

What if killer zombie cows with laser beams come at us?

What-if scenarios may appear to lead nowhere and run on wild tangents, but they have utility nonetheless. Such "movies" often allow us to evaluate and develop our own personal moralities and philosophies by which we live. In this sense, something that may appear to be "just a movie" transcends that and becomes something much more meaningful. If you don't recognize this, then I don't know why you are in the Philosophy forum to begin with.

 

[superwolf]

If you were on a business trip away from your wife and had the opportunity to have an affair with someone really hot. You knew with 100% certainty that you could not be caught and your wife would never find out.

Do you do the deed?

No, because that would give me a feeling of guilt. I don't, however, find it problematic if someone else would do that, because it doesn't cause any suffering. But as you say, that's a 100% theoretic scenario.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

My thoughts are similar to those of John Stuart Mill, pioneer of Utilitarian ethics. Regardless of which boat I am on, I have the moral obligation to do the most good, and in this case, inflict the least pain. Therefore, I would press the button if I were on the boat with more people. If I had 100% assurance that the other boat would not press the button, I would also press the button if I were on the boat with fewer people.

Even when looked upon from a Deontilogical view, my intent is still "good", therefore I am.

 

[superwolf]

To be a little more specific, modern western philosophy - the basis of western laws - rejects the utilitarian perspective. Taking an affirmative action that directly causes the deaths of others is morally wrong under the perspective of individual rights.

So would I be punished if I changed directoin in the trolley problem? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

[Pengwuino]

My thoughts are similar to those of John Stuart Mill, pioneer of Utilitarian ethics. Regardless of which boat I am on, I have the moral obligation to do the most good, and in this case, inflict the least pain. Therefore, I would press the button if I were on the boat with more people. If I had 100% assurance that the other boat would not press the button, I would also press the button if I were on the boat with fewer people.

The button destroys the other boat. Do you mean if you had the assurance, you'd still go ahead with destroying the boat with fewer people on it?

 

[Cyrus]

What-if scenarios may appear to lead nowhere and run on wild tangents, but they have utility nonetheless. Such "movies" often allow us to evaluate and develop our own personal moralities and philosophies by which we live. In this sense, something that may appear to be "just a movie" transcends that and becomes something much more meaningful. If you don't recognize this, then I don't know why you are in the Philosophy forum to begin with.

I didn't know talking about hypothetical arguments about boats with bombs from a batman movie is considered good philosophy these days.

So let's summarize, let's say you are in a boat (filled with bombs), and that unless you blow up the other boat, your boat will be blown up. I suggest you consult batman.

I love how this thread is what if...

what if ...xyz.

what if...xyz...

what if...xyz...

what if, a better topic?

 

[superwolf]

That's another way of stating the utilitarian perspective and it is rejected in western philosophy because instead of the Joker making the choice of who dies alone, the captain is participating in the decision making. That makes him partially culpable.

I don't care what is rejected in western philosophy. What is relevant is the difference the captain makes by blowing the other boat up. The difference is that 1000 people that would otherwise die, survive. He has the opportunity to save 1000 lives at the price of nothing except a possible feeling of guilt. Therefore he should do it. Not doing it would be immora.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I didn't know talking about hypothetical arguments about boats with bombs from a batman movie is considered good philosophy these days.

So let's summarize, let's say you are in a boat (filled with bombs), and that unless you blow up the other boat, your boat will be blown up. I suggest you consult batman.

I love how this thread is what if...

what if ...xyz.

what if...xyz...

what if...xyz...

what if, a better topic?

This thread, along with many hypothetical discussions, leads people to examine their own moral codes, ethics, etc. As such, it is a substantial topic; it forces individuals to examine they way they live and cultivate their own 'ideals'. You simply do not understand that although the situation may be unlikely, it still brings people to discuss philosophies. Perhaps you have seen words floating around such as "ultilitarian" and others that suggest this topic has brought about significant philsophical discussion. If you don't appreciate this, then do not sit around and whine from the sidelines while others attempt to discuss ethics and such.

If you have a "better" topic, then please, make your own thread

 

[Oscar Wilde]

The button destroys the other boat. Do you mean if you had the assurance, you'd still go ahead with destroying the boat with fewer people on it?

Perhaps you misunderstood me or I did not clarify enough. If I were on the boat with 500 people, and I had 100% complete knowledge that the other boat would not press their button, I would press my button. As stated in the beginning, if both groups fail to press their buttons, then both boats are destroyed. I would rather save 500 people than let all 1500 die.

 

[jgens]

The difference is that 1000 people that would otherwise die, survive. He has the opportunity to save 1000 lives at the price of nothing except a possible feeling of guilt. Therefore he should do it. Not doing it would be immora[l].

Only from a utilitarian standpoint. Examining the problem from a deontologist's standpoint, it would certainly be immoral to kill anyone, in fact, it would likely be regarded as your "duty" not to end an individual's life.

 

[superwolf]

How about this:

As before, a trolley is hurtling down a track towards five people. You are on a bridge under which it will pass, and you can stop it by dropping a heavy weight in front of it. As it happens, there is a very fat man next to you - your only way to stop the trolley is to push him over the bridge and onto the track, killing him to save five. Should you proceed?

 

[jgens]

It entirely depends on which ethical principles you subscribe to. As a deontologist, I don't think that you should push the man into the train.

Here's a thought experiment: We can define utilitarianism in terms of what generates the greatest net happiness. Suppose a utilitarian masochist meets a utilitarian sadist. Since the masochist would elicit "pleasure" from being flogged and the sadist would likely find flogging another individual "pleasurable," the sadist is morally obligated to abuse the masochist. From a utilitarian standpoint this could be defined as moral behavior; however, it seems - at least to me - that this defies what we would typically define as moral.

 

[Cyrus]

This thread, along with many hypothetical discussions, leads people to examine their own moral codes, ethics, etc. As such, it is a substantial topic; it forces individuals to examine they way they live and cultivate their own 'ideals'. You simply do not understand that although the situation may be unlikely, it still brings people to discuss philosophies. Perhaps you have seen words floating around such as "ultilitarian" and others that suggest this topic has brought about significant philsophical discussion. If you don't appreciate this, then do not sit around and whine from the sidelines while others attempt to discuss ethics and such.

If you have a "better" topic, then please, make your own thread

Really......a whole thread on the moral conduct of batman? Hmmmmmmmmm...

You're not examining your own moral code by discussing what you would do about a movie scene from batman that has no bearing on reality.