Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Descan]

Isn't war all about that? They kill 100,000's of innocents to stop one "bad guy", and call it "collateral damage".

No, war is wrong, for exactly that reason. Assassination if it's someone like Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Joshua M. Blahyi, or people like them. But causing so many deaths... I don't see how war can be good, barring extreme circumstances (like a Holocaust), and even then, should just chop off the head still.

@Reelya: That's partly what I was gonna talk about, thanks for reminding me. That's another thing that's always bugged me. I mean, sure, I'm not sure I'd be able to pull the switch, and kill the one guy vs. the ten. But that's a psychological barrier, not because I think it's wrong to kill the one guy. All the people who've said it's a moral thing, in philosophy texts, and Hollywood work. That's what bugs me.

[kaijyuu]

@truean

You've a very empirical mindset. "This is a physical world with physical problems." Understand that that is not the only valid way of thinking, either.

Imagine if someone was standing on train tracks with a train coming towards them. They doggedly deny the train is there. Would you let them die, or would you not give a damn what they have to say and yank them out of the way anyway?


The train in question is not empirical, here. Unlike the analogy, you can't glance over and see it. But to some people, it's just as real, empirical or not. I, for one, would not blame them for not caring about your opinion.


There are tangible, empirical consequences to this line of thinking, such as the aforementioned face-punching-to-save-people possibility. And there are real life ones, like discrimination of many sorts. Just understand that it is not irrational to think this way. Empiricism itself is built on one grand assumption, while their opinions are simply built on another that you don't happen to share. You don't have to agree, but you really should understand why they might not give a damn about your not wanting to be "saved."



You're welcome to decry fanaticism and all that junk due to the empirical consequences, just like you're decrying the jerkass actions here. As I said, you don't have to share their opinion. Just understand you will convince no one who shares or understands their position by using empirical arguments. Your choices are to fight them without trying to convince them of anything (suggested), or logically debate them using their premises. Anything else is a waste of time.

[Frumple]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, after all...

At least insofar as morality goes, one of the more common points against this is the concept of agency, or individual choice. The needs of the many may outweigh the needs of the few, but what gives the many the right to force the few to sacrifice themselves -- or rather, to sacrifice the few for their own needs? Or the right for any particular individual to decide that some other individual or small group's needs are 'okay' to sacrifice?

And who decides which needs justify the sacrifice?

If the needs of the many truly outweigh the needs of the few, the story goes, the only moral action is for the few to give themselves willingly. All other options are immoral; they steal the choice from the few. And it's very, very difficult to build a workable system that doesn't very strongly emphasize personal agency.

Now, mind you, that doesn't mean that the other way around is somehow better, and that individual agency is always and forever sacrosanct and leads to good and/or moral ends necessarily -- the needs of the many really do outweigh the needs of the few, if for no other reason than the few is ultimately a subset of the many. Problem is deciding where the line's drawn in a world where the situation is very, very, rarely as simple as 'kill this person, ensure cure for cancer' and where morality of the majority has very rarely (more like never, really) actually turned out well.

[Realmfighter]

In each case you're making the same basic choice between the life of 1 and the lives of 10 ... but we call one choice "inaction" and one "action". The only difference is how / whether your arm moved.

When the choice is yours you make an action. If that action is to stand and do nothing you kill ten, pull the lever you kill one. Even the absence of movement is an action. I really don't see the difficulty in this situation because in the end it's either murdering one person or murdering ten.

[SalmonGod]

That question also assumes no personal relationship, knowledge, or even superficial judgement of any of the potential train victims.  These things get muddy really fast when you throw in factors besides raw numbers.  It's easy to say objectively that 10 lives are always better than 1, but in a realistic scenario, it is just as easy to falter in that calculated resolve for some crucial second or two because of some emotional attachment, deeply buried prejudice, etc.  How often is it that your belief in all life being equal is tested?

[Descan]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" only really works for clear cut, "Do this, get bacon" style circumstances. Aside from thought experiments, circumstances like that rarely exist. I just believe that it's one of the more moral options. (Though I do admit that if I was one of the "few" I'd be railing against it to a degree. Kill me to save a few people? No. Take my house to open a homeless shelter? Okay. Take my money to give life-saving treatment to an entire nation? Already do that, it's called Canadian health care, and I'm fine with it.)

Other circumstances need individual thought, evidence, and weighing of the many options of action. Rarely in life does one sentence, one philosophical statement clear the way to a definitive answer.

[G-Flex]

In each case you're making the same basic choice between the life of 1 and the lives of 10 ... but we call one choice "inaction" and one "action". The only difference is how / whether your arm moved.

When the choice is yours you make an action. If that action is to stand and do nothing you kill ten, pull the lever you kill one. Even the absence of movement is an action. I really don't see the difficulty in this situation because in the end it's either murdering one person or murdering ten.

Why are you calling it "murder"? It's not even your choice to be in the situation. Do you really think this person could responsibly be held culpable for murder?

[Descan]

I don't know if they'd be legally accountable, but morally, yes. They could do something to help, they don't, they're responsible. You don't always choose to be responsible for things, or choose to be in a situation! You can't just say "I didn't choose to be here!" and get off scot free.

[Nadaka]

Its only murder if you put them in that position in the first place. at worst, you are looking at 9 cases of negligent manslaughter if you choose to save the one person instead of 10 and you didn't set it up in the first place.

[Descan]

I wasn't talking about legally, but you're right. Legally they aren't fully responsible.

Laws aren't always moral, though.

[G-Flex]

I don't know if they'd be legally accountable, but morally, yes. They could do something to help, they don't, they're responsible. You don't always choose to be responsible for things, or choose to be in a situation! You can't just say "I didn't choose to be here!" and get off scot free.

Er, except in this situation, no matter what you do to help (of the available choices) you're responsible for murdering someone. According to Realmfighter. Argue about which choice is more moral, sure, but to say that you would be morally guilty of murder no matter what you do, in a situation you didn't choose to get into or to start, and that's just bullshit.

[Realmfighter]

I'm not talking legally. And I wouldn't attack someone over choosing to do nothing assuming that they didn't come to that action through logic and just BSODed at the choice. But if you thought about it logically and decided to let 10 die for the one? Murder probably isn't a good word but you still bear some responsibility for letting the world lose nine people more than it would have otherwise.

[kaijyuu]

Here's a wrench I love throwing into these thought experiments:

What if that 1 person was a friend/spouse/child of yours, and the other 10 were people outside of your monkey sphere you've never met before?

[SalmonGod]

On one side:  10 members of westboro baptist church on their way to raise hell at a gay soldier's funeral.

On the other:  Umm... fuck I set the bar kind of low there, didn't I?  Just about anyone looks good enough by comparison to give pause.  I'll go with Samuel L. Jackson just for fun.

There's more than 10 lives to 1 running through your head now, right?  Even for long enough that if it was a clutch decision, it wouldn't be objectively by the numbers anymore?

(Damn Kaijyuu beat me to it... but I still brought up the point first, just without an example )

[Luke_Prowler]

Could I just push the people off the track and avoid the situation all together? The world is rarely a binary question