Print

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

PURPLE

0 (0%)

ALERT

0 (0%)

(I need suggestions is what I'm saying.)

0 (0%)

Total Members Voted: 0

[Vector]

*shrug*

This is my version of rationality.  Disagree, if you like, but this is who I am.

[Gantolandon]

And if everyone says that, where are we?

And if everyone reasons as I do, where are we?

Not so negligible after all.

If we assume that everything that costs the society as a whole is bad, it opens a whole new can of worms: for example that it's better to just kill yourself instead of using public health care.

[Vector]

If we assume that everything that costs the society as a whole is bad, it opens a whole new can of worms: for example that it's better to just kill yourself instead of using public health care.

Nah.  If I kill myself, the society loses a hell of a lot of effort in terms of education, blah blah blah.  I haven't spent my years as a producer, they've just engaged in absurdly large sunk costs to no positive result.

[Gantolandon]

Nah.  If I kill myself, the society loses a hell of a lot of effort in terms of education, blah blah blah.  I haven't spent my years as a producer, they've just engaged in absurdly large sunk costs to no positive result.

We are talking about a generic member of society. Is your intended answer that he should absolutely do that if costs of saving him outweigh his productivity?

[The Merchant Of Menace]

I.E, Me

[Fenrir]

*shrug*

This is my version of rationality.  Disagree, if you like, but this is who I am.

Well, I would be lying if I said that I was not in the slightest bit dissappointed by this reply. As a moral relativist, yes, I do agree that you have your own version of morality, but I am afraid I can not afford you a different version of rationality, unless I misunderstand what you mean. Unlike morality, rationality is objective.

If you are not telling me that, at least in this particular case, you wish to view the world in your own way, regardless of logic, I can accept that, actually. I would not be able to tolerate it, and I might think it unwise, but I think you would have that right. If that is who you are, and you want it that way, I have nothing to say against it.

[andrea]

well, it is different due to the "innocent man" thing I posted earlier, although I must admit I used a rather peculiar definition of innocent ( and probably not even correct)

if they both are dying, something or somebody must have already "killed them". they both are involved in whatever happened. I can only save one, which means I must choose. I save my loved one, but are unable to save the other.

if one is dying and the other is healthy, it is not a matter of giving something to one instead of another, but taking it from one, and giving it to the other. Which means that I take a man totally uninvolved in whatever happened to my loved one and grab his life while he can't even argue. If I thought that doing that was right, then it would be right for some stranger to just enter my room while I sleep and rip my heart from my still living flesh. I don't know about you, but for me that is not ok.

while if instead a soldier shot me while I was walking on a battlefield... well, I can't claim to be uninvolved anymore. sure, I would still live, but I knew what I was doing .

( not that war is any nicer than murder... but that is another story)

bah. probably I still didn't manage to clearly say what I mean... and even then, since it is subjective rather than objective, I would not convince anyone.

[Fenrir]

I understood, Andrea. There is a sort of theft involved with taking the man's life; it was not yours to give.

EDIT: Vector, when I said that I was dissappointed in my previous post, that was more rude than I cared to make it sound. What I meant to say was that I felt like you were holding back; it seemed like you were just tired of arguing. Perfectly permissible and understandable, of course; correcting me is hardly your obligation.

[andrea]

yes, it is more or less that. I can't give what is not mine to give, I can't take what is not mine to take. Well, that is a relief. agree or disagree, at least I managed to say what I wanted.

[Leafsnail]

There is a perfectly logical reason not to engage in the murder even if you are confident you won't get caught - guilt.  It's a real thing that may well make you feel terrible, and it could easily be a secret you have to keep from your loved one forever (never a particularly nice thing to have).

Also, any "loved one" of mine is 60 or more years old and has vocally told me that they're getting ready to die.  Also, they'd never forgive me if I killed the dude--I'm not someone folks feel affectionate about for my capacity to take revenge.  So.

This is actually a very crucial point.  If your loved one found out you've killed an innocent person to save them, would they really be happy about it?  I guess it's different if your loved one actually asks you to do it, but I like to think I don't keep company with anyone that damn selfish.

(...Come to think of it, it's like that bit at the end of almost any murder story where the motive was revenge.  The detective asks the person if the one they were avenging would really be happy seeing them as a murderer.  I've yet to see a case where the response was "Yeah, of course!").

[Gantolandon]

if they both are dying, something or somebody must have already "killed them". they both are involved in whatever happened. I can only save one, which means I must choose. I save my loved one, but are unable to save the other.

if one is dying and the other is healthy, it is not a matter of giving something to one instead of another, but taking it from one, and giving it to the other. Which means that I take a man totally uninvolved in whatever happened to my loved one and grab his life while he can't even argue. If I thought that doing that was right, then it would be right for some stranger to just enter my room while I sleep and rip my heart from my still living flesh. I don't know about you, but for me that is not ok.

Let's try to summarize it then: when choosing between two similar outcomes, inaction is always better than action. Is it accurate?

There is a perfectly logical reason not to engage in the murder even if you are confident you won't get caught - guilt.  It's a real thing that may well make you feel terrible, and it could easily be a secret you have to keep from your loved one forever (never a particularly nice thing to have).

Wouldn't you also feel guilty that you could have saved him/her but have chosen not to do so? Would you tell your loved one about your choice or prefer that he/she never knows?

[Vector]

We are talking about a generic member of society. Is your intended answer that he should absolutely do that if costs of saving him outweigh his productivity?

I'd say it's up to him and his moral system.

I think you don't seem to understand that in these ambiguous cases, I think people should just decide for themselves.  I put forth my version of rationality--as it pertains to me, and the people I care for.  It has nothing to do with what everyone else does, so far as I am concerned.

If you are not telling me that, at least in this particular case, you wish to view the world in your own way, regardless of logic, I can accept that, actually. I would not be able to tolerate it, and I might think it unwise, but I think you would have that right. If that is who you are, and you want it that way, I have nothing to say against it.

Maybe I just don't love them enough.

Or maybe it's that I thought about that guy, and how he might have kids who needed him, and how he really wasn't up to giving whomever bone marrow anyway.  And I thought about what kind of life you'd have to put you in a place where you'd let someone else die when you could have saved them.

Oh, and I thought through the scenario with a young, pretty woman, too, who had cancer (nothing she could have possibly brought down on herself)--a single mom--and wondered what sorts of responses we'd get then.  Or a young man who wasn't really old enough to have thought much through, who was young and angry.  Or a gay man who had contracted syphilis and left it alone for a while.  Or a renowned scientist.  Or a murderer.

Or, hell, what if the person I loved happened to be that guy?  I know that at least one of them would have probably said "no."  Had someone killed him for his bone marrow, I would have been ... unbearably heartbroken.  That isn't a "just" death.  To be angry at sickness, at circumstance, is one thing.  I am prepared for circumstance.  But someone else's actions, with that person and the beneficiary still alive, still happy... no, unbearable.


I know about my circumstances, and I don't know about the circumstances of the other person.  I cannot choose for them.

Truth be told, in reality, I'd probably try to introduce my loved one and the callous person to each other--and hope.

Wouldn't you also feel guilty that you could have saved him/her but have chosen not to do so? Would you tell your loved one about your choice or prefer that he/she never knows?

I wouldn't tell my loved one that I didn't murder for them.

That is because I would have never thought to do so.

And no, I honestly don't think I'd feel guilty at all.

[Leafsnail]

I'd hesitate to tell them about the "choice" at all to be honest because... well, I don't generally consider murder to be an option, and I don't want to give my loved one the impression that I do.  I most definitely would not murder them without discussing it though (this is in a theoretical scenario where I do decide to kill him).  You can't claim to be killing for someone else's sake if they don't even want you to do it.

Let's try to summarize it then: when choosing between two similar outcomes, inaction is always better than action. Is it accurate?

No.

The two outcomes are not the same.

One outcome leaves someone dead and people mourning over their death.

The other outcome leaves someone dead, people mourning over their death and a murderer who will struggle with guilt for the rest of his life and possibly never come to terms with what he did (especially if he sees the people mourning over the dead person).  He will also carry a terrible secret from his loved one... or, if he discussed it, a terrible secret with his loved one who will also feel (perhaps even worse) guilt.  Even if the murderer is never caught, he'd probably remain paranoid about being discovered for the rest of his life.  And even if they came up with a foolproof alibi and removed all evidence that anyone even touched the plug... their guilt could one day cause them to turn themselves in or admit it to the family of the victim.

So, tell me again that this is only a matter of passivity.  Unless you're a complete sociopath, killing the man will almost certainly result in a situation that is worse overall.

[ChairmanPoo]

I'd have laid down the problem in a different way.

[andrea]

vector's post made me think about explainng it using another point of view.

If my loved one was ill and was going to die, I would be sad. But I would accept it... death happens. it is one of the few things we can be sure of in life.
But if my loved one was healthy and some stranger actively killed him/her to harvest some body part... well, I would be much more angry, because it wasn't an accident. Why him/her? why did that person have to take my loved one's life?

sure, if I just look at myself, by killing the man, I get my loved one back and then it is another family's problem.
but morality ( usually) is not about yourself and your interest, but also about other people. Mine is, anyway. I will, when possible, avoid a greater injustice.
in the case of 2 dying people and 1 bottle of medicine, they are equal, so I can let my own egoistical needs choose.