Moral Dilemma Questions

[six7s]

If I want to suggest to you that you do that with your car, I can do that too

Can you (with a clear conscience) do that when the other person is 'less-than-normally' balanced (e.g. overly stressed, under the influence of 'medication', etc)?

 

[Cold one]

It's like with cars; if I want to smash my car up and set fire to it, I have every right to do so. If I want to suggest to you that you do that with your car, I can do that too. But I cannot destroy your car without permission, because it's not mine to destroy..

Not the same, but for the sake of argument - if you think it is not right to smash a car then why do you think it ok to talk someone else into smashing thier car.

My life belongs to me. If I want to end it I will. If I want to suggest that you end your life, I will. But what I won't do is take your life against your wishes, except in direct defence of myself or others.

"In the direct defence of yourself", that is the exact case in the life boat your self is needing to be defended.

But I'll be watching closely, and if I see you attack somebody then I'll kill you.

You can watch as closely as you like didn't say how it was going to happen, hell you may be the target. If you decide to take command of the situation manipulation of someone else to kill you wouldn't be very dificult. So in this instance retaliation wouldn't even be directed at me.

 

[Cold one]

I got a new moral dilemma.

You are cornered by members of an organization. This organization demands that you join them in an act of murder. If you don't comply you will be maimed or killed. If you go along with the act you will be punished by the law. Do you take the "beating" and live or die, or do you join them?

 

[six7s]

If you go along with the act you will be punished by the law. Do you take the "beating" and live or die, or do you join them?

Why/how 'punished'?

Where I live (a democracy), I'd like to think we have a legal system that would afford me some leniency in regard to acting under duress

 

[Cold one]

Six7s even here in the US you would have to prove duress, and in that case it is you vs. them. So as to the why - murder, accomplice to murder to name 2 whys.

I'm sure there are many cases in the legal system where someone claimed to be pressured, but still wound up taking the punishment.

As far as punishment goes, if you go on trail whether or not found guilty there is still the fact that it goes on your record. If found guilty of murder of course the punishment will vary but you will still wind up in prison.

In just about any society the stigma is still harsh and thus the punishment will always follow you, say in regards to getting a job.

 

[bokonon]

Kill this guy, kill that guy. Feh.

I have a real moral dilemma. I recycle cans. I drink the contents of the cans, and flatten them, and when I have a huge bag of crushed cans I take them to the recycling center, where they're weighed and I'm paid.

Is it okay, after I've unwrapped a Hershey's Kiss, to drop the foil wrapper into a can before I crush it? After all, it's still aluminum, and still worth recycling. But it isn't properly part of the can. I paid a "can recycling value" (CRV) when I bought the sodas, and that's presumably what's being returned when I recycle the cans. If the cans I take back weigh more than the cans I bought, am I stealing from the recycler? Even if the extra weight is extra aluminum?

Or how about this. I'm driving along a 3-lane road, and I see the light up ahead turn red. There are long lines of cars queueing up in the left lane and the middle lane, but the right lane is open. I'm planning on continuing straight through the intersection. Do I pull into the right lane, potentially blocking cars behind me who would invoke the "right turn on red" rule to make a right turn before the light changes to green, thus saving themselves time? Or do I take my place at the end of a long line of cars, and risk wasting MY time if I have to sit through another cycle of the light?

The moral decisions I wrestle with rarely involve questions of who I'll murder. I don't have time for a lot of second-guessing. When in doubt, I just snuff the sucker, and move on.

 

[Cold one]

Well in the case of the cans I don't see any dilema at all unless they say specifically "cans only"

And the cars, how does that have anything to do with morality, and why are you so impatient? Seems that you are really just trying to justify being a hole, when you should be trying to figure out what makes them more important(thus more deserving) than you.

 

[Elind]

Before you answer, think carefully. Suppose you say you'd kill the terrorist mastermind Osama bin Laden. That might seem like a good idea at first, but there are other factors to take into account. First, what's to stop president Bush for taking credit for it, and using the fact of Bin Laden's death to further justify his failed policies in Iraq? Secondly, in a group like Al-Qaeda, there are likely 100 men lined up waiting to take Bin Laden's place. Third, if Bin Laden were to die, it's practically guaranteed that he'd be made a martyr to his cause.


So what would you do?

Why couldn't I kill all the 100 at the same time, and the 100 after that?

Seems to me it wouldn't take but a very short time indeed to recognize that certain perspectives leads to sudden death and was therefore a fool's vocation (most fanatics don't invent this stuff on their own).

Probably would even reach the typical daily death from stupid drivers before some people thought they should get a job instead.

 

[John_Geeshu]

These moral dilemma questions are fun for a lark and to raise issues of morality, but I for one cannot answer them honestly, divorced from the emotions I would be feeling at the time.

In the first scenario, power like that begs to be abused — get mad at someone, kill 'em, and then it's too late to take it back a second later when you realize what you have done. So, reason compels me to say I would give it up without a second thought. However, I have no way to know what I would actually do if I received said power having never had it before.

In the second scenario, reason says to me that the "save as many as you can" rule applies here. If one is repelled by the thought of being responsible (directly or indirectly) for the death of one man (sick or not), one must be at least as equally repelled by the idea of dooming 30 (including oneself) to a watery grave. So it would seem that people in this position would be required to take their own life — I see no good reasoning in this course given that by causing another to perish in your place you would be saving your family and friends from the anguish of grief. Also, one cannot underestimate the survival instinct — is it even possible for any of us to take our own life if we are not unaware of our actions, in extreme emotional stress or facing torture of some kind? The more interesting raised by this scenario is, is the terminally-ill man's life worth less than that of others in the boat, assuming they are all healthy and young and will survive to reach the shore? Why or why not? If one chooses to pitch him overboard in favor of someone else in the boat is one making the explicit statement that his life is worth less than the lives of others in the boat?

This is a difficult question to answer I think, because I can come up with many scenarios involving a choice between two people. Assuming you can only save one and you must save one and assuming that all of these people are alive and healthy, from the following list of paired people, who would you save and why?

1. Mozart or Hitler;
2. Bill Gates or a nameless bum;
3. Louis Pasteur or Dick Cheney;
4. Michael Brown of FEMA fame or James Randi;
5. Michael Jackson or Aretha Franklin;
6. Me or my next door neighbor's wife (I am married as is my neighbor's wife, they have 3 children and I have no children with no plans to have any)

In the third scenario, the dilemma is greatest for me. This is because there is no clear-cut indication of how events will turn out. If I was certain to die from the beating, then I would be forced to agree to participate in a murder, however, given the possibility that I might survive though maimed or injured in some fashion, it makes it much more difficult and I am torn. Again, I do not think that I can give an accurate answer because I do not know how afraid I would be in this scenario, and what my fear would drive me to do. Having not ever felt survival instinct kick in well and truly I do not know what I am capable of.

As an aside, the question of whether we have the right to take a life or not seems the wrong question to be asking. I think that the better question to ask is "Do I have a greater right to life than someone else? And under what circumstances can I answer 'yes' or 'no'?"

 

[Darth Rotor]

So what would you do?

Osama? Dead!

Let the fight for succession commence, I expect plenty of internecine follies during that stage of Al Qaeda's response.

(for the children in our Randi audience, from M Webster:

internecine adj
1: marked by slaughter : deadly; especially : mutually destructive

2: of, relating to, or involving conflict within a group <bitter internecine feuds>

A few selected others? Dead!

Wormer? Dead!

Niedemeier? Dead!

DR

 

[Darth Rotor]

Next scenario. This one was included in the recent Time magazine article on morality and ethics.

Your cruise ship has struck an iceberg and sunk, and now you are crammed with more than 30 other survivors onto a lifeboat intended to hold 7. If at least one person is not offloaded, the lifeboat will eventually sink before reaching safety. Aboard the lifeboat is a terminally ill elderly man, who does not have very long to live regardless. The water is too frigid for anyone to survive a swim, and all other lifeboats are likewise overloaded. If you throw someone off, they will surely die, but the other passengers might make it. If you do nothing, everyone will likely perish when the lifeboat capsizes.

Do you throw the man overboard, sacrificing his life to save the other passengers, or not? What other options might you have? Is there anything illogical about this hypothetical situation?

Do you ask anyone at all if they are willing to give it up for everyone else? Might be one of those self martyrs in the group. Best to check first.

Do you ask the man if he'd like to go, since he's lived a full and wonderful life?

Do you volunteer to sacrifice yourself for everyone else's future? In short, do YOU jump on the grenade? The way you set up your hypothetical tells me you wouldn't. So no, I won't be sharing a foxhole with you, thanks all the same.

And if you are on the boat, maybe I toss you off, and save the old man.

DR

 

[Cold one]

For me these are simple until you take out the "me" factor.

1. Mozart dies, I like his music and he had a huge impact on the arts, but I think in the essence of keeping the timeline in order, and thus keeping myself in it I think Hitler must live.
2. Bum dies, kind of putting him out of his misery in my book.
3. Cheney dies, Pasteur has contributed too much to science.
4. UM DUH Brown dies, funny thing is if you would have asked this question a month ago I wouldn't have known who Randi was, and still picked the same cause I hate FEMA.
5. Really a coin flip here for me.
6. Sorry bud but your fate is in the hands of the coin as well.

And as far as your last question goes, yes my life is more important to me, with an exception to my kid if I ever have one.

 

[Pardalis]

I'd save Mozart and kill hitler myself. Bill Gates can buy himself a boat, and there's no need to moonwalk on a lifeboat. I can't stand the French so I wouldn't want to be stuck with one on a lifeboat, but Cheney will probably die of heart failure anyway, so that makes two new spaces in the boat. James Randi shows that you can be old and still have lots to give the world and make an impact, and if Brown finds himself in a lifeboat situation that means he didn't do is job, AGAIN.

For the last one I'd sacrifice myself, since I have no wife and no kids.

 

[John_Geeshu]

The "me" was not meant to refer to whomever was reading the post, but specifically me — John_Geeshu.

No coin available to toss.

Based on your answers, are you making a value judgement as to the relative worth of each life and picking the one you perceive to be worth more?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Not the same, but for the sake of argument - if you think it is not right to smash a car then why do you think it ok to talk someone else into smashing thier car.

Because it's not that I am against smashing cars. It's that I am against smashing cars that don't belong to me.

I am not against lives being ended as such. I am against ending lives when you don't have the right to.

"In the direct defence of yourself", that is the exact case in the life boat your self is needing to be defended.

No. That's exactly why I said DIRECT self defence. The man in the boat is taking no action intended to injure me; the threat he poses is posed by his mere existence, and is a distant threat that may or may not come to pass, and won't for some time if it does. I have no right to go killing people because they will pose a danger to me in the future.

You can watch as closely as you like didn't say how it was going to happen, hell you may be the target. If you decide to take command of the situation manipulation of someone else to kill you wouldn't be very dificult. So in this instance retaliation wouldn't even be directed at me.

You assume that your skills in this respect are superior to mine. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Either way it's not really relevant, my point was that there would be a clash of morals here. You believe you'd have a right to murder in this situation; I think I would have a moral right to stop you. Whether you would win that conflict or I would isn't really at issue.

 

[Cold one]

Not really John to me all life has equal value. This being said though my life is the most valuable because "I" am the only thing that can be proven to(my satisfaction) exist. That does not mean that "I" can prove to you that I exist, just means that you can't prove to me that you exist.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I got a new moral dilemma.

You are cornered by members of an organization. This organization demands that you join them in an act of murder. If you don't comply you will be maimed or killed. If you go along with the act you will be punished by the law. Do you take the "beating" and live or die, or do you join them?

That's not even a dilemma. The answer is a resounding "no".

 

[Seismosaurus]

Assuming you can only save one and you must save one and assuming that all of these people are alive and healthy, from the following list of paired people, who would you save and why?

1. Mozart or Hitler;
2. Bill Gates or a nameless bum;
3. Louis Pasteur or Dick Cheney;
4. Michael Brown of FEMA fame or James Randi;
5. Michael Jackson or Aretha Franklin;
6. Me or my next door neighbor's wife (I am married as is my neighbor's wife, they have 3 children and I have no children with no plans to have any)

I would refuse to choose. There is no "must save one", it's an impossibility.

No, actually, strike that. For the sake of the dilemma let's assume that I have to choose. I'd choose randomly.

 

[Cold one]

I am not against lives being ended as such. I am against ending lives when you don't have the right to.

Kind of where we started, who gives anyone said right? And if one has "the right" why are they limited to when they can use it?

No. That's exactly why I said DIRECT self defence. The man in the boat is taking no action intended to injure me; the threat he poses is posed by his mere existence, and is a distant threat that may or may not come to pass, and won't for some time if it does. I have no right to go killing people because they will pose a danger to me in the future.

Ok so going by this you would not do anything to ensure your survival as long as the process took a little bit of time. If you are starving because of a lack of food due to overcrowding then the threat is direct, but since no one is taking specific action to harm you you would then have no right. Did I come to a correct deduction? Please explain the difference here if my judgement is off.

You assume that your skills in this respect are superior to mine. Perhaps so. Perhaps not. Either way it's not really relevant, my point was that there would be a clash of morals here. You believe you'd have a right to murder in this situation; I think I would have a moral right to stop you. Whether you would win that conflict or I would isn't really at issue.

I assume nothing except that when people are stressed(scared, traumatized) to an extreme degree they are chaotic, also the life boat being as crowded as it is (fits 7 holding 30+) would not allow for you to watch much of anybody.

I have been in a life boat, they aren't very nice. If you think you would have the ability to watch everyone in it, much less be able to effectively control it you are deluded.

As far as a clash of morals yes we would but you seem to find it ok to kill for your morals but not your life, and that is what intrigues me in this case.

 

[Seismosaurus]

Kind of where we started, who gives anyone said right? And if one has "the right" why are they limited to when they can use it?

I don't understand what you are saying. You are arguing that if I have the right to end my own life I must have the right to end any life? I don't understand why you would think that.

I believe we should have a right to end our own lives. I don't believe we should have a right to end other people's lives (unless in defence as I said earlier. There are other exceptions that don't concern us here, war, capital punishment and such.) I can see that you might not agree with this view, but you seem to be arguing that it's some sort of contradiction or something?

As to why people have that right? Like I said, it's a matter of property rights as far as I am concerned. My life belongs to me; it's mine to end. Your life doesn't, and isn't.

Ok so going by this you would not do anything to ensure your survival as long as the process took a little bit of time. If you are starving because of a lack of food due to overcrowding then the threat is direct, but since no one is taking specific action to harm you you would then have no right. Did I come to a correct deduction? Please explain the difference here if my judgement is off.

No, that is not direct. By "direct threat" I mean that somebody is deliberately acting in a manner intended to cause me harm, then and there. Running at me with an axe in an attempt to kill me, for instance.

I assume nothing except that when people are stressed(scared, traumatized) to an extreme degree they are chaotic, also the life boat being as crowded as it is (fits 7 holding 30+) would not allow for you to watch much of anybody.

And I could just as easily argue that under conditions of chaos and stress whatever action you take might be far more obvious to me than you think. Perhaps you happen to be close to me and I just happen to be looking in the right place at the right time. Whatever.

But as I said, it's totally irrelevant whether either one of us would be ABLE to act. The purpose of the hypothetical is to explore morality, not physical capability. One can always suppose that circumstance will block an action one would try to take.

As far as a clash of morals yes we would but you seem to find it ok to kill for your morals but not your life, and that is what intrigues me in this case.

It intrigues me that that's how you've interpreted what I said. I have repeatedly stated that I would kill in self defence, so claiming I would not kill "for my life" is a strange thing to say. As for killing "for my morals", I'm not sure what you mean by that.