Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

[superwolf]

Each person's definition of "utility" is different, it could lead to chaos. A person could justify slaughtering his family in order to maximize his personal utility.

Utilitarianism is about the greater good, not personal utility.

Or a person could make the idiotic decision that blowing up a school will inspire people to reform academic policies and improve the education of millions to come. The problem with utilitarianism is it puts a dependence on people's immediate individual decisions and thought process. Not everyone attempts to assess the utility of their actions. Many people just blindly follow the rules set forth (ie, 10 commandments or federal and state laws). There is a benefit to people not trying to think for themselves when they are likely to make terrible decisions.

Are you serious? Intending to imrove the education of millions is a good thing. The guy chooses wrong strategy. People's disability to make perfect decisions is not an argument against utalitarianism morre than any other theory, because we have to make decisions.

The problem with utilitarianism is it puts a dependence on people's immediate individual decisions and thought process.

Which we depend on anyway. The best way to obtain the greater good, is to aim for it.

Not everyone attempts to assess the utility of their actions. Many people just blindly follow the rules set forth (ie, 10 commandments or federal and state laws). There is a benefit to people not trying to think for themselves when they are likely to make terrible decisions.

Utilitarianism simply simply states that the right action is the action that maximizes universal happiness and minimizes universal suffering. It does not urge people to make decisions based on insufficient evidence. Nor does it suggest that we don't listen to experts.

 

[superwolf]

Everyone is in their proper place in their own space-time reality and its just too bad that the 5 are in a life threatening place… the fat man is in no way to be used as a sacrificial rescue for the others.

Can that be defended from an utilitarian point of view? (No, I'm not accusing you of utilitarianism, I'm just curious to find out).

 

[superwolf]

it would be a waste of my time to discuss it!

It may seem a waste of time to discuss theoretical situations, but they actually make you investigate your moral standards and values.

 

[DaveC426913]

Maybe my comment was unnecessarily derisive, but I do think it accurately reflects my contempt.

Ok well, freely admitting your emotions are getting the better of you can only be a point in my favour.

In your own words

You think that our revulsion to killing as a factor is fallacious i.e. not relevant. My point is that it is the most important thing because it is a manifestation of our morality​

I've certainly changed the connotation, but I'm not so sure I've changed the denotation -- you yourself have stated that you consider the fact the action is difficult to perform to be most important thing.

I think you're misunderstanding me. I'm not saying revulsion is the motivator, or that the revulsion is making us do the wrong thing, I'm saying we strongly realize that killing is morally wrong. Efficiency of numbers is not a moral issue - Not killing is a moral issue.

Normally I would agree, and be properly ashamed of myself. But this is an interesting edge case, because you have essentially been pushing the idea that recognition of what is moral is an unavoidable instinct, and that that instinct supercedes considering the situation rationally.

My ad hominem attacks are precisely the what I perceive to be the major flaws in such a position -- as far as I'm concerned, it can only possibly work if:
(1) your instincts are generally aligned with my moral standards
(2) you never face a dilemma that lies outside of your instincts' domain of validity

And this justifies an ad hominem how?

Since you have made character central to the discussion, and the ad hominems are precisely the problems I see in this aspect of your argument, I'm not convinced it is a fallacy.

In other words, the flaw in the argument is the person making the argument. No other person but myself could possibly come to the same conclusion as I did.

Irrelevant, of course, because in real life, we have to make decisions without reading the script.

If I may be so presumptuous: you "knew" - as did I - the "correct" answer before it played out, based on our pre-existing philosophies. We did not need to read the script to know how we should act.

Now that you've "seen" two situations (one fictional, one historical) where all lives can be spared, does it occur to you that your prevailing solution might have a huge flaw (namely that you may kill people who didn't have to die)?

Flaw #1: I never said I'd push the button. I can't even get people to agree that there's an issue worth discussing -- it would be a waste of my time to discuss it!

Ha ha. Put your money where your mouth is. You can't ignore your cake and discuss it too!

BTW, you must be willing to be the one to push the button. Otherwise, you're just pushing the issue off on someone else to make.

Flaw #2: this is a fallacious appeal to the consequences. If the morally right course of action has legal consequences, that doesn't change whether or not the action was morally right -- it just means that the legal system sometimes punishes morality.

No it doesn't, it punishes the needless deaths of 500 innocent people. Nice try though.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Dave, quite a bit of your objection seems to come from the form of the scenario so I would like to make a new one with a similar intent as that of the OP but which I think will resolve many of your objections.

This is a reworking of the Trolley scenario to make it more realistic.
A train has lost its breaks. The engineer has just contacted you to let you know and you have immediately contacted emergency response while he acts in every way possible to attempt to fix the problem. Unfortunately all of his actions have been in vain. You know for certain that the train will not be able to slow enough on its own to prevent it from derailing and crashing into an area densely packed with bystanders at the next bend. You have only two to three minutes before this happens and will be lucky if emergency response can even arrive in that amount of time let alone evacuate the place. You have one option available to you though. There is a switch track that the train will reach in a matter of seconds. If you make the train switch here it will most definitely derail and the persons aboard will all likely suffer severe injury or die but the area is not populated and there will likely be few if any colateral injuries and deaths from the crash. Do you switch the train?

I think this covers all of the OP's premise. You have a situation where a large number of people will be hurt or killed and one option that will preserve the lives of some but making you directly responsible for the event that kills the rest. I believe that major objections you had to the OPs scenario were that we do not know for certain what will happen and that the situation is entirely too fantastic. I think that my scenario leaves little doubt what will happen in either outcome and is fairly realistic. So what do you think?

 

[DaveC426913]

Dave, quite a bit of your objection seems to come from the form of the scenario so I would like to make a new one with a similar intent as that of the OP but which I think will resolve many of your objections.

This is a reworking of the Trolley scenario to make it more realistic.
A train has lost its breaks. The engineer has just contacted you to let you know and you have immediately contacted emergency response while he acts in every way possible to attempt to fix the problem. Unfortunately all of his actions have been in vain. You know for certain that the train will not be able to slow enough on its own to prevent it from derailing and crashing into an area densely packed with bystanders at the next bend. You have only two to three minutes before this happens and will be lucky if emergency response can even arrive in that amount of time let alone evacuate the place. You have one option available to you though. There is a switch track that the train will reach in a matter of seconds. If you make the train switch here it will most definitely derail and the persons aboard will all likely suffer severe injury or die but the area is not populated and there will likely be few if any colateral injuries and deaths from the crash. Do you switch the train?

I think this covers all of the OP's premise. You have a situation where a large number of people will be hurt or killed and one option that will preserve the lives of some but making you directly responsible for the event that kills the rest. I believe that major objections you had to the OPs scenario were that we do not know for certain what will happen and that the situation is entirely too fantastic. I think that my scenario leaves little doubt what will happen in either outcome and is fairly realistic. So what do you think?

Yes. Lying in bed last night, I realized the the trolley scenario was much better than the two-ferry scenario. The trolley and your scenario eliminate the "whose fault" issue of the madman as well as all the contrived elements that go with it.

And it is possible that we could see ourselves in one of these or a similar situation. Which mreans we casn apply proper (as opposed to artificially-forced) decisions to it.

And yes, I do believe that I would switch the train. Peoples lives are in direct and immediate peril in this situation - emphasis mine, the threat to their lives is both obvious and imminent. There just are no alternatives.

You could look at it as being directly responsible for the deaths of those epople, but you have also directly saved many lives. (Something that is not necessarily true of the ferry boat scenario, with all its unknowns).

In this situation, deaths could not have been prevented.

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Yes. Lying in bed last night, I realized the the trolley scenario was much better than the two-ferry scenario.

Good thing to know that I'm not the only one who goes to bed thinking about PF discussions. ;-)

 

[Huckleberry]

Utilitarianism is about the greater good, not personal utility.

...

Utilitarianism simply simply states that the right action is the action that maximizes universal happiness and minimizes universal suffering. It does not urge people to make decisions based on insufficient evidence. Nor does it suggest that we don't listen to experts.

What is greater good? I've never heard a definition of it that is accepted universally. So how can any utilitarian moral decision accurately reflect a universal greater good? It only reflects the subjective moral values of the decision maker.

Maybe if both boats cast ballots in a democratic manner and action were taken on the results of the majority you would have a case, but I would still disagree with it. Nobody has offered that yet as a solution. So far the utilitarian position is that it is okay for one person in authority to decide an outcome that results in the deaths of many people, which is the same position as the psycopath that orchestrated the event. The person who makes that decision shares responsibility with the psycopath. The only difference I see is that in one case the murder was premeditated and in the other it was unplanned. That's the difference between first and second degree murder. Manslaughter is unintentional, which the deaths caused in the boat scenario definitely are not. The utilitarian position is trying to make a case that (manslaughter) is good if it is compliant with their subjective moral values.

edit - voluntary manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge than second degree murder. I had to look it up. Manslaughter is not always unintentional.


When one complies with the demands of terrorists they create a market for terrorism. It is my opinion that does not serve the greater good. The recent rise in piracy in Somalia may be a good example. If they are never rewarded through utilitarian negotiations then there is no cause for their actions, unless of course they just enjoy murdering people for pleasure and pocket change.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

What is greater good? I've never heard a definition of it that is accepted universally. So how can any utilitarian moral decision accurately reflect a universal greater good? It only reflects the subjective moral values of the decision maker.

Maybe if both boats cast ballots in a democratic manner and action were taken on the results of the majority you would have a case, but I would still disagree with it. Nobody has offered that yet as a solution. So far the utilitarian position is that it is okay for one person in authority to decide an outcome that results in the deaths of many people, which is the same position as the psycopath that orchestrated the event. The person who makes that decision shares responsibility with the psycopath. The only difference I see is that in one case the murder was premeditated and in the other it was unplanned. That's the difference between first and second degree murder. Manslaughter is unintentional, which the deaths caused in the boat scenario definitely are not. The utilitarian position is trying to make a case that (manslaughter) is good if it is compliant with their subjective moral values.

edit - voluntary manslaughter would be a more appropriate charge than second degree murder. I had to look it up. Manslaughter is not always unintentional.


When one complies with the demands of terrorists they create a market for terrorism. It is my opinion that does not serve the greater good. The recent rise in piracy in Somalia may be a good example. If they are never rewarded through utilitarian negotiations then there is no cause for their actions, unless of course they just enjoy murdering people for pleasure and pocket change.

Just because something cannot be completely defined does not mean that it is inherently wrong. I do not know if you are familiar with Mill, but he advocated that decision makers take the role of an objective bystander. Under this idea, the decision maker would not be relying on his or her own, as you say, "subjective moral values".

The utilitarian response to a situation does not rely on having only one person in authority making the decision. There are plenty of other ways to reach a result that the Utilitarian would be happy with.

 

[Sorry!]

Isn't utilitarianism based upon the greater good for humanity?

So how can you even USE utilitarianism to decide the ultimate ethical value of blowing up 1000 or 500 people on each ship?

you don't know WHO is on each of the ships and you don't know WHAT they can do etc.
for instance say that there is someone on the ship with 500 people that will in the near future cure aids and prevent COUNTLESS numbers of deaths... this wuold amount to much greater than 1000 people so wudn't it be unethical to kill him anyways? shudn't the other boat commit suicide?? utilitarianism doesn't work by numbers of lives. it's worked out by the worth of the lives. which we don't know about. wisdom experience etc etc.

a way of course to steer clear of unethically killing anyone would be if the boats could communicate to one another and one boat would then decide to allow the other boat to live and allow the other boats occupants to kill them... Because as Mill said (i'm assuming the OP knows of Mill since he references to utilitarianism a lot) only the individual person knows the worth of their own lives compared to whatever act they will commit (i think he uses a bridge) So utilitarianism clearly can't work in this situation as you describe because not one person can make a decision for everyone

This reminds me of a story ... about 3 hikers getting stuck in a cave and they decide to kill one of the hikers and eat him. They all together decided to draw sticks and agreed that whoever drew the short stick would be killed and used as food. The English court system found the 2 men not guilty because they were in a confined area working with their own democratic laws. I'll look for the article.

AS for the docotor scenario, how can we know that the person we are killing isn't able to save more than 6 lives alive? As well how do we know that a person hasn't just died when the jogger was killed and they now have other organs to use. So now just the jogger has died and he didn't even need to...EDIT: ah someone above has beaten me to the democratic situational ethics :P (guess i should have read the entire 10 pages of posts :P)

 

[Sorry!]

I just read the train situation about switching tracks. I think it would still be unethical if you don't tell all the passengers on the train that you are going to switch the tracks...

 

[DaveC426913]

I just read the train situation about switching tracks. I think it would still be unethical if you don't tell all the passengers on the train that you are going to switch the tracks...

In the immortal words of one hot-shot pilot: "No time to discuss this with the commitee, your highness."

 

[Sorry!]

In the immortal words of one hot-shot pilot: "No time to discuss this with the commitee, your highness."

There might not be any time to do this and you have to act immediatly but i still think it's immoral.

 

[Hurkyl]

I assert that if all choices in some situatino are immoral by your standard of morality, then your standard isn't a good one.

 

[DaveC426913]

I assert that if all choices in some situatino are immoral by your standard of morality, then your standard isn't a good one.

Agreed.

Solutions lie on a scale. One action (or inaction) has to be more morally justifiable than the rest.

 

[Jamma]

If you disagree with destroying the boat with 500 people on it (let's bring some maths into it here :D) then there surely must be an upper limit to your ratio of people on the boats to where you hit the detonator. What if it was 1600 on your boat and 400 on the other? What if it was only 2000 to 20? What if it was only 1 and (yes I know, it would have to be a ridiculously large boat) the rest of the world's population on the other... so that you would basically be destroying the human race. Unless you still think that practically destroying the whole human race would still be less immoral... and if anywhere in between, for what possible reason would this be the chosen value?

 

[DaveC426913]

If you disagree with destroying the boat with 500 people on it (let's bring some maths into it here :D) then there surely must be an upper limit to your ratio of people on the boats to where you hit the detonator. What if it was 1600 on your boat and 400 on the other? What if it was only 2000 to 20? What if it was only 1 and (yes I know, it would have to be a ridiculously large boat) the rest of the world's population on the other... so that you would basically be destroying the human race. Unless you still think that practically destroying the whole human race would still be less immoral... and if anywhere in between, for what possible reason would this be the chosen value?

I'm going to distill my response using the streetcar as a counterpoint: in the boat scenario the impending deaths are not obvious and imminent enough to warrant the active murder of innocent people. It simply cannot be said that not pressing your button will directly kill those people.


Go with the streetcar. You can still get the ratios there.

 

[Sorry!]

Well if it were the entire human race minus one... i would kill that one person. It still might be immoral but who cares? There are times (as dave said above that he would switch the train track) where you won't be acting for the greatest happiness of everyone. but there are situations where it doesn't matter at all.

 

[Zantra]

First on the jogging scenario:

The only correct answer is that as a doctor, you cannot kill a patient intentionally to save lives- it violates the hippocratic oathe, and I'm betting that's the answer that teachers would be looking for, because it is a slippery slope when you're talking about killing people to save others. Then you have to come up with the equilibrium of the killing ratio-

How many people do you need to save to justify killing each person. OR, what's the most people you could kill to justify saving X number of lives? what criteria do you use? How do we define the value of 1 person to X number of people?

What if I said you could save a million lives, but Einstein would have to die. Hitler's got him with a gun to his head, and he'll pull the trigger if you shoot Hitler, but it would save millions of lives. Is it worth killing Einstein? What if the million lives you save will all be known killers, murders, and rapists? What if the million are all 70+ years old

On second though, let's flip the script. let's say you have the opportunity to save the person you love most in the world, Somone has a gun to their head and they will only release them if you push the button launching a nuclear weapon. But it's targeted at a remote island, and only 100 people would have to die. Do you save your loved one or the 100? What about 1000? 10000? a million? a billion? How much is your loved one worth to you?

The choices can get pretty tough in that kind of a scenario. It all comes down to placing a numerical value system on a human life. It comes down to weighing the value of one life against another, and maybe no one is qualified to make that decision.

On the Batman scenario:

for this one comes into play. what you should read into this question, and what I didn't see mentioned (though I already read about the first 7 pages) is that we're talking about an act of self preservation versus a morally correct decision.

So the answer that you as a person will weigh is: "How many people are going to die if I kill the other boat, and will I be able to live with myself if I do push that button".

You'd like to think that the captain is thinking of the other passengers and their well beings. You'd like to think that he puts the wellfare of others before himself- and ultimately he may, but what no one likes to talk about is that he will think of himself first- regardless of his character, that will be the first thing to come to mind. if he's a good man, he'll work past it to the greater good, but a lesser man will weigh HIS life against the rest, because it is simple human nature to do so. Someone mentioned it being a diffeence between 1 man making the decision and the whole boat. That's because no one will want to "appear selfish" while at the same time thinking only of their own lives. Unlike the captain they have no duty- no vested interest, and if the lights go out on either boat, that button gets pushed.

It all goes back to the slippery slope no matter how you slice it.

 

[Jamma]

I'm going to distill my response using the streetcar as a counterpoint: in the boat scenario the impending deaths are not obvious and imminent enough to warrant the active murder of innocent people. It simply cannot be said that not pressing your button will directly kill those people.Go with the streetcar. You can still get the ratios there.

Or if your logic is so sound, you could just answer the question I posed? Take any of the values you like; it must fall somewhere, would you seriously still not press the button if you were to kill one person to save millions?

Saying that you can't be sure that not pressing the button is going to kill them is irrelevant in my mind because the amount of life at stake is so huge if your uncertainty about them not being killed is wrong and as I've said before, we could just adapt the argument to make the event more certain such as in the trolley case (or possibly this streetcar case which I haven't seen yet).

And again, in philosophy, asking theoretical questions that may not be possible in real life can lead to great incite, whether you like it or not. Even if you disagree, try to answer the question I posed under the conditions that, somehow, you not pressing the button would definitely lead to the deaths of those people. You may not find this inciteful, but I'm very sure that I will.

 

[DaveC426913]

Or if your logic is so sound, you could just answer the question I posed?

I answered it in about a zillion previous posts. Don't murder innocent people. The circuitous logic involved in determining whether a group of people are going to die is too open to warrant action.

Take any of the values you like; it must fall somewhere, would you seriously still not press the button if you were to kill one person to save millions?

How strong is the evidence? How likely are the deaths? The word of a madman? Nope.

Look at this this way: you don't know that pressing the buttons will save any lives, including your own. So, you are not acting to save lives.

(Has it occurred to anyone that a madman might very well have rigged the trigger to blow up the boat it's on. Woudn't that be the last laugh?)

Saying that you can't be sure that not pressing the button is going to kill them is irrelevant in my mind because the amount of life at stake is so huge if your uncertainty about them not being killed is wrong ...

Really? So if I walked up to you at lunch time and told you I was going to kill the whole human race, would it justify killing me? Or would you need some sort of evidence that maybe I had the means and motive to carry it out.

we could just adapt the argument to make the event more certain such as in the trolley case (or possibly this streetcar case which I haven't seen yet).

And again, in philosophy, asking theoretical questions that may not be possible in real life can lead to great incite, whether you like it or not.

You may not find this inciteful, but I'm very sure that I will.[/QUOTE]
I have never claimed it wasn't inciteful. Quite the contrary. (uh, hello? Who's the one who's most active in this discussion?). I provided a very clear cut answer, and no one has said anything to change my logic.

What's happening here, is that you don't like my answer.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

Dave,

The difference in our opinions, as I have deduced from reading some more of your posts, is in how we view the initial scenario. I see death as imminent, but you seem more doubtful. It is from here that our logic branches.

 

[Sorry!]

Dave, the way your talking makes me think you like going to the casino a lot and you love to bet against the house. Erase from your mind that this is a 'madman' cause I don't think that the OP wanted to present the 'madman' in the light that you have taken it. I think he meant madman as in psychopathic killer type (such as the Joker in Dark Knight which this thread is about...) Anyways given the circumstance of the new numbers say 1 million lives vs 1. I would even take the chance that that 1 person should die if i were only 1% sure that the million would die ESPECIALLY if i was included in that group. In fact I would hope that this 1 person would volunteer to die in order to prevent the possibilities from even playing out any further... I know I would.

 

[DaveC426913]

Erase from your mind that this is a 'madman'

This is what I've been saying all along. Present a different scenario.

And so others did. The trolley is a good one.

If you want to examine the odds, then present your own - plausible - scenario.

Anyways given the circumstance of the new numbers say 1 million lives vs 1. I would even take the chance that that 1 person should die if i were only 1% sure that the million would die ESPECIALLY if i was included in that group.

And I presented you with a counter-scenario to show that this is illogical (or at least, incomplete).

"If I walked up to you at lunch time and told you I was going to kill the whole human race, would it justify killing me? Or would you need some sort of evidence that maybe I had the means and motive to carry it out."

You see, no matter how large the numbers, it requires some degree of confidence in the outcome to decide how to act.

 

[Sorry!]

while i completely agree with what your saying about the first scenario being kind of far-fetched in actuality.. I thought before we were only speaking hypothetically.

For the original scenario no matter the difference in numbers I personally would be thinking that the other boat could possibly kill us (i think there is a significantly higher probability of this occurring than the madman being the one to do it). Self-preservation as opposed to being heroic. I think that this would be the first thought to enter most peoples minds. Does this mean we are cowards? I wouldn't suspect so, I feel comfortable saying I would place my life on the line for other people. Having signed up for the military I would pressume could possibly show that. This situation is out of control though and you're not in the drivers seat so the first instinct I figure would be to save myself. Anyone elses input?

"If I walked up to you at lunch time and told you I was going to kill the whole human race, would it justify killing me? Or would you need some sort of evidence that maybe I had the means and motive to carry it out."

This situation is different though. Because I have a means to contain you and attempt to stop you. As well there has been no reason to suspect you of actually carrying out these thoughts. Like from reading your posts ect. you seem intelligent and not ill-natured so if you had came to me and said that I would probably laugh and buy you a couple drinks or something. ;) I think the major difference in the situations though is that the madman has ALREADY set his plans into motion (he has somehow hijacked 2 boats and placed explosives on them, we think, and has everything set up) so it kind of gives him more credibility to doing the deed or at least expecting something to come out of it. And the madman in question is the Joker and we all know his character :P

 

[DaveC426913]

This situation is different though. Because I have a means to contain you and attempt to stop you. As well there has been no reason to suspect you of actually carrying out these thoughts. Like from reading your posts ect. you seem intelligent and not ill-natured so if you had came to me and said that I would probably laugh and buy you a couple drinks or something. ;)

So, it's not a purely black & white scenario. This is what I'm sayin'.

I think the major difference in the situations though is that the madman has ALREADY set his plans into motion (he has somehow hijacked 2 boats and placed explosives on them, we think, and has everything set up) so it kind of gives him more credibility to doing the deed or at least expecting something to come out of it. And the madman in question is the Joker and we all know his character :P

If we're going to go on the Joker's character then I propose two even more likely outcomes:
1] he blows up our boat anyway, just for giggles
2] he wires up our trigger to blow up our boat, again, just for giggles.

This last one is particularly ironic, as it would punish those who are most selfish in preserving their own lives.