Moral Dilemma Questions

I read something about many that live deserving death, and some that die deserving life. I can't give it to them, so I'm not too eager to deal out death in judgment.

Add to that the whole unintended consequences thing.

I wouldn't do it.
 
Regarding the Death Note, I actually started a similar thread a while back in another forum I frequent (the Darwin Awards Philosophy Forum). It wanders off topic a bit, but has some good discussion on the subject.

As far as the lifeboat scenario, the logical and most ethical choice in that exact scenario, assuming no other complicating factors or other available options (one person dies or everyone dies), is to toss the poor old gentleman overboard. What I would actually do would probably be closer to asking for a vote on the subject, with him getting the first say, if time permitted such discussion. After all, it makes things significantly easier if he chooses to sacrifice himself to save everyone else, and anyone that votes not to toss him and to let everyone die instead could be asked to volunteer as the sacrifice. Ideally, whoever is sacrificed should consent, but if nobody consents, then the person with the least to lose is the most ethical one to force out.
 
Dogmeat said:
I'd give it up, I have no right to take anyone's life and neither does anyone else, no matter how depraved the target.
Click to expand...

So the police, who shoot a hostage taker, are being immoral? Even if the hostage taker is killing one hostage an hour and tossing them out the door of the plane?

Some angry man is approaching your mother to rape and then murder her, and you wouldn't do it because you don't have the right?


In Florida a few years back, a man kidnapped a 9 year old girl, raped her, then wrapped her in plastic and gave her a teddy bear to comfort her as he buried her alive. If you magically knew what this guy looked like, moments before he started burying her, you wouldn't do it?


To you, I will only point out this Willy-n-Ethyl cartoon. Willy is polishing his 2-barrel shotgun. Ethyl asks him, "What would you do if everybody in the world gave up all their guns and knives and weapons?"

"Rule wisely."
 
Beerina said:
So the police, who shoot a hostage taker, are being immoral?
Click to expand...

No. But Dogmeat is not the police. Policemen are duly appointed officers of a duly elected government; they have a mandate from the people that extends to their using lethal force in some circumstances. Dogmeat does not, and nor do you (I assume) or I.

I have no moral right to go and kill other people, except in direct defence of myself or others. I wouldn't have used my death power on anybody, ever, simply because I thought they deserved to die. Likewise I would not throw the old gent or anybody else overboard, no matter that it saved 29 lives or 29 hundred.

In the lifeboat, I would first ask if there were any volunteers to sacrifice themselves for the rest. Assuming that nobody volunteered, I would suggest that we draw straws or engage in whatever other random selection method we had to hand.

If they refused that, and I really was faced with the stark reality that we are all going to die... I'd jump overboard myself to save the rest.
 
In the example of the lifeboat I find it interesting that people say they have no right to take a life while at the same time suggesting to "draw straws".
In my opinion if you have no right to take a life then you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life(even there own). If you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life then you cannont ask for volunteers or ask to randomly have someone die.
On the other hand if you have no right to take a life and someone volunteers to kill themselves can you morally stand by and not try to stop them?
 
Cold one said:
In the example of the lifeboat I find it interesting that people say they have no right to take a life while at the same time suggesting to "draw straws".
In my opinion if you have no right to take a life then you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life(even there own). If you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life then you cannont ask for volunteers or ask to randomly have someone die.
On the other hand if you have no right to take a life and someone volunteers to kill themselves can you morally stand by and not try to stop them?
Click to expand...

Opinions may just have to differ here. In my view, it makes a big difference if there is a volunteer, as he has consented to the loss of his life. The same applies to a lottery: if everyone has agreed to a lottery, the loser has consented to the outcome.
 
Cold one said:
In the example of the lifeboat I find it interesting that people say they have no right to take a life while at the same time suggesting to "draw straws".
In my opinion if you have no right to take a life then you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life(even there own).
Click to expand...

I honestly don't see why not. I firmly believe that I have no right to take another person's life, but they have every right to take their own.

If you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life then you cannont ask for volunteers or ask to randomly have someone die.
Click to expand...

Sure I can.

On the other hand if you have no right to take a life and someone volunteers to kill themselves can you morally stand by and not try to stop them?
Click to expand...

Absolutely. If somebody wants to take their own life, then my only real concern is that their manner of doing so may disrupt others.
 
Silentknight said:
Aboard the lifeboat is a terminally ill elderly man, who does not have very long to live regardless.
Click to expand...

To what extent? In the long view, we're all terminally ill.

Remember, life is a sexually transmitted, terminal disease.



Cold one said:
In the example of the lifeboat I find it interesting that people say they have no right to take a life while at the same time suggesting to "draw straws".
In my opinion if you have no right to take a life then you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life(even there own). If you have no right to suggest that someone else take a life then you cannont ask for volunteers or ask to randomly have someone die.
On the other hand if you have no right to take a life and someone volunteers to kill themselves can you morally stand by and not try to stop them?
Click to expand...

On the other hand (that's three hands!), by not doing anything, you are also making a choice. You are choosing to dump 30 people into the frigid water.

So it comes down to the lesser of two evils. Would people who object to having the right to take a life prefer to have the right to take 30 lives?
 
Oops. :blush:

Sorry, I forgot to mention that in the original lifeboat scenario, the terminally ill man will probably not survive the journey to shore. I suspect the reason I overlooked that detail is because I was trying to weed out any illogical details. The obvious logical inconsistency here is that it's very unlikely that someone so ill that he would die on a timer would ever embark on a cruise. If he were healthy enough to go on a vacation, he should be healthy enough to LIVE until the end of the hypothetical scenario.

So to answer your question, it's assumed (and I don't know by what criteria) that the old man will die before the lifeboat reaches safety.
 
I would use such power for gor the furtherance of human kind and good only,

my own good and unalienable right to dominate the gene pool thus fulfilling my Genetic Destiny, Most lasses will be OK as I need receptacles and carriers for my spawn.

Cat ears and tails would be the new dress code, Playful nekomimi will become second nature after a while.

MWUHUHUHHAHAHA you will kneel before me (and close your eyes it might sting)

Seriously I would too. Consider yourself subjegated
 
Silentknight said:
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?
Click to expand...

Ask for volounteers, if no volounteers suggest that the old geezer gets it, if everyone objects without offering a more reasoned solution, then I'll turf out the first that fails in their bailing duties.

Only other reasoning would be to order people in regards to Weight, Largest mass to lack of bailing or priority survival ability goes.
 
Furi said:
Only other reasoning would be to order people in regards to Weight, Largest mass to lack of bailing or priority survival ability goes.
Click to expand...
Other reasoning is available. Someone above made mention of a police sniper shooting a hostage-taker to save lives. The reason we accept (if not condone) such an act is because the hostage-taker is the responsible agent for the danger created to the hostages. In the lifeboat, it would appear that there is no single responsible agent. Every one of our 30 passengers is responsible to relatively the same degree for the predicament.

Or so it would seem. In all likelihood, however, the boat was not manned by all passengers simultaneously. The last passenger on board was the one that doomed the lot. So if no-one volunteers, excess weight should be removed in reverse order of boarding.
 
I'd "turf" the weakest sob on the boat, because whoever it is isn't going to be leaving voluntarily.
 
Personally I feel that I along with everyone else have every right to take a life if I so determine to.
The fact that I don't is simply because I don't act in futility. In my mind I have determined that unless my life or those that I determine to be close to me(freinds, relatives, loved ones) is threatened then I simply won't take a life, not that it is the right or wrong thing to do.

Both the mind power and the life boat case I would have no difficulty with any moral dilema about taking lives.
In the mind power case taking a life for the "greater good" is based on the idea that you know what the better cause is and is more or less determined by location. Most people believe that they would be in the "right" because of how they were raised. Me though? probably wouldn't use it but keep it anyway for the "just in case" moment where my survival would depend on it.

In the lifeboat case it is simply a matter of survival and based on that I would kick everyone off to insure my own survival, that is of course the whole point of life isn't it to survive and pass on your genes.
 
Cold one said:
In the lifeboat case it is simply a matter of survival and based on that I would kick everyone off to insure my own survival, that is of course the whole point of life isn't it to survive and pass on your genes.
Click to expand...

It may be the point of yours, it's not the point of mine.
 
If not inter-generational survival, what is the point of your life then?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom