Moral Dilemma Questions

[Cold one]

OK Seismosaurus
Going by what you have said - you believe suicide is fine but murder is not.
"Direct threat" involves only a physical act to end your life or cause you harm.

Please explain where I have made an error in thought here if any.

So again I ask - If you were dieing from starvation would you not kill someone to get more food in order to survive?

 

[Seismosaurus]

OK Seismosaurus
Going by what you have said - you believe suicide is fine but murder is not.
"Direct threat" involves only a physical act to end your life or cause you harm.

Please explain where I have made an error in thought here if any.

Seems about right.

So again I ask - If you were dieing from starvation would you not kill someone to get more food in order to survive?

No. The person you describe isn't attacking me.

ETA : And I don't believe in stealing anyway. Property rights again.

 

[Cold one]

No. The person you describe isn't attacking me.QUOTE]

This is the point where I get lost in your reasoning. The act of him being alive is a direct threat to your life. If this person lives then you die from that action. Why then do you feel, in this situation, that you can not defend your life?

 

[Seismosaurus]

No. The person you describe isn't attacking me.

This is the point where I get lost in your reasoning. The act of him being alive is a direct threat to your life. If this person lives then you die from that action. Why then do you feel, in this situation, that you can not defend your life?

Your first statement is patently false. Lack of food is the direct threat to my life. His having food when I do not may possibly be construed as a threat to my life, though I would quibble even with that, but if it is then it is an indirect one.

 

[six7s]

His having food when I do not may possibly be construed as a threat to my life, though I would quibble even with that, but if it is then it is an indirect one.

It's easy to be a pacifist in peacetime

Do you seriously think you would not "quibble" on, say, your fifth day without food if there was no end in sight?

 

[Seismosaurus]

It's easy to be a pacifist in peacetime

Do you seriously think you would not "quibble" on, say, your fifth day without food if there was no end in sight?

*shrugs*

I can't know that any more than you can. Some people maintain their principles in face of extreme adversity, some don't. I make no pretence that my moral system would remain solid against harsh reality.

As I've repeatedly said, I am discussing what the moral thing to do is. Desperation can drive people to do immoral things, but that does not mean those things become moral.

 

[Cold one]

Ok first off sorry for taking over this thread.

Siesmosaurus my point is this, if you give up your right to kill (or don't think you have it in the first place) how can you then kill some one indirectly (using the straws) or suggest that someone else die.

If the only death you have a right to is your own, wouldn't that in actuality mean that you would have to kill yourself in the lifeboat?

 

[Frozenwolf150]

Killing yourself, or jumping on the grenade as DR put it, is certainly an option in the second scenario. So yes, personally volunteering to risk the freezing waters yourself is a valid answer. However, I was actually the most interested in seeing if people could find the logical inconsistencies in the lifeboat situation, because it was precisely those loopholes that I felt could be exploited to save everyone without having to get bent out of shape about who has to die.

As it has been pointed out, there's a big freaking iceberg nearby. One of the theories about how the Titanic could have been saved involves hitching the ship to the iceberg itself, because obviously the iceberg floats. Moving people onto the iceberg rather than risking the lifeboat could be a viable way to save lives in this case. Secondly, it would be pretty stupid to deliberately overload the lifeboats in the first place. Any cruise ship is going to have plenty of other materials that float, such as wood furnishings, and those would be better than nothing. Third, I think it's a rule nowadays that large ships must have enough lifeboats to accommodate all the passengers, although I haven't checked into this.

Personally I never would have gotten onto the lifeboat in the first place if I knew one more person would cause it to capsize. It'd be the fault of the last person to get on board, regardless of what shape they're in. Of course, a stupid cruise in iceberg-infested waters is not my idea of a fun vacation, so I wouldn't be in that situation anyway.

 

[Oroborus]

All these "if you were starving" questions make me giggle. How many of us have known anything beyond a mild hunger? I find the speculation of nobility when faced with something you've not experienced amusing. Sure you'd like to THINK you wouldn't eat that corpse, or kill your partner then eat them, but who knows really?

 

[Seismosaurus]

Ok first off sorry for taking over this thread.

Siesmosaurus my point is this, if you give up your right to kill (or don't think you have it in the first place) how can you then kill some one indirectly (using the straws) or suggest that someone else die.

I don't see that straws thing as my killing another person, even indirectly. I am asking for volunteers to enter a random selection process; they have every right to refuse to take part if they want to.

If the only death you have a right to is your own, wouldn't that in actuality mean that you would have to kill yourself in the lifeboat?

I did say that I would do exactly that if all else failed.

 

[John_Geeshu]

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.

This is a hypothetical situation. In this case to take part you must suspend your disbelief that such a situation could be possible. Saying you would refuse to choose is for all intents and purposes a non sequitur. This is not an exercise in possibility, it's an exercise to explore whether people put more value on one life than another.

My next question to you would be are you answering you would choose randomly because you do not want to choose one over the other or because you cannot?

I think that the idea that every human life is equal in value to every other human life is a nice, warm fuzzy thought in principle, but in practicality it is untenable. We make decisions every day that place greater value on one life over another, they usually aren't life and death situations. To say, for instance, that humankind would be no better off if Mozart's work were gone from the annals of history as opposed to Hitler's is a position I would not wish to defend. Though it might make a good debate topic.

 

[Seismosaurus]

This is a hypothetical situation. In this case to take part you must suspend your disbelief that such a situation could be possible. Saying you would refuse to choose is for all intents and purposes a non sequitur. This is not an exercise in possibility, it's an exercise to explore whether people put more value on one life than another.

Which is exactly why I changed my answer in my first post on the subject...

My next question to you would be are you answering you would choose randomly because you do not want to choose one over the other or because you cannot?

It's because I believe that people are of equal fundamental value.

I think that the idea that every human life is equal in value to every other human life is a nice, warm fuzzy thought in principle, but in practicality it is untenable. We make decisions every day that place greater value on one life over another, they usually aren't life and death situations. To say, for instance, that humankind would be no better off if Mozart's work were gone from the annals of history as opposed to Hitler's is a position I would not wish to defend. Though it might make a good debate topic.

For me, it's not a matter of whether Humanity would be better off or not. I freely concede that Mozart made the world a better place and Hitler made it a worse one. But I don't base which person I would save on how much difference it is likely to make to the world.

 

[Cold one]

I don't see that straws thing as my killing another person, even indirectly. I am asking for volunteers to enter a random selection process; they have every right to refuse to take part if they want to.

Ok this was were my confusion was, the way you said it I was under the impression that everyone would be drawing straws.

Silentknight

As has been said this is a hypothetical situation which requires, for the exercise, to suspend looking at other options and answering the question posed.

Cruise ships, or anything large and floating for that matter are required to provide life boats to handle double the max passengers. Life jackets are also required in the amount of 2 per total number of people that could be aboard.

I would also like to point out that people leave most reasoning behind in matters of extreme emergency. While working offshore I was on the safety committee for my rig. We did emergency drills twice a month, and emergency evac drills twice a year where the boats were loaded and launched. Even though these were drills and not real situations we had several people every drill that would freak out and loose most reasoning sense.

 

[John_Geeshu]

For me, it's not a matter of whether Humanity would be better off or not. I freely concede that Mozart made the world a better place and Hitler made it a worse one. But I don't base which person I would save on how much difference it is likely to make to the world.

But you reject the reason I propose as not a good one? On what grounds? By admitting that you think Mozart made the world better and Hitler worse, are you not making a value judgment on their respective worth? Or, is the value of our actions as human beings to humanity not an indication of our value as human beings relative to one another?

 

[Cold one]

I would also like to propose (and I'm sure I will get a ton of flak for this) that Hitler had a bigger impact on making the world better. I'm not saying that what he did was "right" or "good" but the things done during the wars on both sides have led to great accomplishments in most all areas of the world. While Mozart from what I understand only contributed to the area of music.

 

[Seismosaurus]

But you reject the reason I propose as not a good one? On what grounds? By admitting that you think Mozart made the world better and Hitler worse, are you not making a value judgment on their respective worth? Or, is the value of our actions as human beings to humanity not an indication of our value as human beings relative to one another?

Precisely so. I believe that people have an innate value that transcends the value of their contribution to society, their monetary worth, or anything else.

I think of people as being something like great works of art. The bum on the street that you class as worth less than Bill Gates... that bum is an absolutely unique individual; his duplicate is not to be found anywhere else in the universe, has never been seen before, and every dollar of Bill Gate's money combined could not create another of him. Now that may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

 

[Seismosaurus]

I would also like to propose (and I'm sure I will get a ton of flak for this) that Hitler had a bigger impact on making the world better. I'm not saying that what he did was "right" or "good" but the things done during the wars on both sides have led to great accomplishments in most all areas of the world. While Mozart from what I understand only contributed to the area of music.

That's not so much Hitler as those who fought against him...

I think you rapidly get into a silly situation when you try to calculate the impact of a person's life on the world. It's simply unknowable. Like "It's a Wonderful Life", whose to say that the one guy you impact on doesn't go on to impact on hundreds of others? And they to impact on thousands more.

Did Hitler have a negative impact on history? Suppose Hitler's rise to power kept somebody else out of power who would have been twice as bad? Suppose his extermination camps killed the man who would have grown up to start World War III and kill two billion people?

Likewise when you save a life... what if that life you save goes on to be a mass murderer? Does that mean you had a negative effect on the world?

All you can really do is look at your direct actions. Trying to judge the second or third-hand removed implications is futile.

 

[John_Geeshu]

Precisely so. I believe that people have an innate value that transcends the value of their contribution to society, their monetary worth, or anything else.

I think of people as being something like great works of art. The bum on the street that you class as worth less than Bill Gates... that bum is an absolutely unique individual; his duplicate is not to be found anywhere else in the universe, has never been seen before, and every dollar of Bill Gate's money combined could not create another of him. Now that may not matter to you, but it matters to me.

I don't recall stating my position, I'm merely probing your standpoint as I find I am curious about it.

Indeed his DNA sequence is unique in the sense that (assuming he is not an identical twin) it is not replicated anywhere on earth. I'm not sure how you can justify the claim that its duplicate does not exist anywhere in the universe. That would seem to me an unknown. If we remove the bum from society what has been lost?

 

[Cold one]

That's not so much Hitler as those who fought against him....

Precisely my point. His impact was larger because without his actions the domino effect that occured later would not have happened.

I think you rapidly get into a silly situation when you try to calculate the impact of a person's life on the world. It's simply unknowable. Like "It's a Wonderful Life", whose to say that the one guy you impact on doesn't go on to impact on hundreds of others? And they to impact on thousands more.

That is my point the domino effect should come into calculations when "value" is determined.

Did Hitler have a negative impact on history? Suppose Hitler's rise to power kept somebody else out of power who would have been twice as bad? Suppose his extermination camps killed the man who would have grown up to start World War III and kill two billion people?

I never placed "value" on his actions merely said that his actions affected/effected more people.

Likewise when you save a life... what if that life you save goes on to be a mass murderer? Does that mean you had a negative effect on the world?

Again personally I don't think of negitave or positive(good and evil). However people that do make those claims usually would say that your life had a negative impact in this case(from my experience).

All you can really do is look at your direct actions. Trying to judge the second or third-hand removed implications is futile.

I think you have made a very valid point here. Most of the time however when someone is declared "good" or "evil" the idea is that what they did does not extend beyond direct actions. I am simply suggesting that when people "decide" worth they look at everything.

 

[Seismosaurus]

But it's impossible. You cannot look beyond direct actions with any certainty; and the further from the direct actions you go, the more uncertain it is.

Did Hitler's actions have an overall positive or negative effect on Humanity, when considered out to the N'th degree? There's no way to know. Why try to assess a person's total effect when it can't be done?