Can Morality Survive in a Life or Death Dilemma?

[Hurkyl]

But put a detonator in their hand, tell them there's 500 innocent people lashed to the business end, and see if they still think it's just numbers.

A fallacy, and an obvious one at that. The difficulty one has in performing an action has no bearing on whether or not that is the morally correct action.

You're pushing the idea that you should ignore any difficult moral issues and simply take the easy way out.

 

[drankin]

From my armchair, it would be morally acceptable for either boat to detonate the other under the circumstances. But, I believe is also morally acceptable for an innocent person to kill another in order to same themselves. Liken it to self defense. I had to push the button or he was going to kill me.

 

[DaveC426913]

A fallacy, and an obvious one at that. The difficulty one has in performing an action has no bearing on whether or not that is the morally correct action.

You're pushing the idea that you should ignore any difficult moral issues and simply take the easy way out.

How strange that you see a weakness where I see a strength in the argument.

The point I'm making is that there is a very good reason for it being difficult. The reason is because it is morally reprehensible to kill people, let alone 500 of them. I brook no qualifiers on it that might offer various contrivances to supposedly make it morally justifable (like the assurances of a madman that he will kill you if you don't).

In my opinion, to kill or not to kill is the only moral issue here, and it brushes aside all this smoke and mirrors designed to make you think you're somehow "rationally" murdering 500 innocent people.

 

[Huckleberry]

Okay, now it's murder in both cases. You've introduced a second murderer to take partial responsibility for the scenario. It doesn't change the intent of the person doing the pushing. It just adds more murderous intent to distract from the first example.

If you keep pushing the boundaries you will eventually find a point where I would agree that I would push the guy, or press the button, or whatever. You would have to push pretty hard, and I would still think it was wrong. It would just be a matter of practicality over principle.

Note that I would consider this sacrifice of others against their will as practical in exceptional situations, not as ethically sound. So if you are making a case that it is ethically sound then I am still in disagreement. If you are making a case that if you raise the stakes high enough it can sometimes be practical, then I would have to agree with you even though I hate it. I generally don't accept philosophies that value practicality over principle. They tend towards a pattern of doing what is useful to them, and not what is good. But ask me what good means and I probably can't explain that to your satisfaction either. That's where the lines get crossed and what is practical to the authoritative agency becomes the definition of principle that they act upon.

I'm very wary of any scenarios that would force people into a situation where they would be complicit in the execution of some lives for others. It seeks a practical answer while eliminating options for principled ones. Wars can be practical. A principled war on the other hand, I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

edit - the sarcasm is mostly for my own amusement. I do think my point was pretty clear, but I was obviously ranting. Take what you want from it or ignre it completely as you see fit.

 

[DaveC426913]

Wars can be practical. A principled war on the other hand, I'm not sure if such a thing exists.

Just ask the defending side...

 

[superwolf]

Will it be immoral of the captain with 1000 passengers on his boat not to push the button?

 

[Huckleberry]

Just ask the defending side...

Oh, they're just sore losers who always got picked last at dodgeball. That's what happens when you lose at the numbers game.

 

[ephedyn]

I subscribe to the contractarian view. That the person responsible for the detonation, and the 1500 people, were to come together in some initial state prior to the ethical action, given the condition that they will be randomly put into this group of 1501.

With no premonition of which role they would end up with, and knowing it would be better than if all of them were to die together, these 1501 people would certainly agree that it is fair that the correct action of the person placed in charge of the detonation is to blow up those 500 in favour of 1000 - everyone would prefer a 1000/1501 survival rate to a 1/1501 survival rate if this dichotomy were to be forced upon them; this would be a minimax decision, and a pretty easy one to make.

Edit: Let me complete my point, though this conclusion will be trivial; hence, the option of killing 500 in favour of the lives of the other 1000 is ethically justified because that is simply a 'pre-contract'.

 

[junglebeast]

Two boats are with explosives and 1000 and 500 people respectively. Each boat has a detonator to the other boat's bomb. Both boats will be blown up in one hour unless one boat blows the other boat up first.

Will it be immoral of the captain on the boat with 1000 people not to blow the other boat up?

Morality is relative to a person's morals, which are derived from their experiences. Therefore there is no absolute answer to this question, because the answer depends entirely on the person answering...just as there is no absolute correct answer to the question, "where were you last night?"

You can ask the opinion of as many people as you like, but the only people who will answer the question absolutely are those who believe that the concept of morality was created by a God before mankind entered the picture.

 

[superwolf]

Morality is relative to a person's morals, which are derived from their experiences. Therefore there is no absolute answer to this question, because the answer depends entirely on the person answering...just as there is no absolute correct answer to the question, "where were you last night?"

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

Are you of the opinion that all moral values are equally valid?

You can ask the opinion of as many people as you like, but the only people who will answer the question absolutely are those who believe that the concept of morality was created by a God before mankind entered the picture.

As an utilitarian, I will give an absolute answer; yes, the captain should blow the other boat up. I hate it when people say that without being religious, you can have no moral standards.

 

[junglebeast]

As an utilitarian, I will give an absolute answer; yes, the captain should blow the other boat up. I hate it when people say that without being religious, you can have no moral standards.

To the contrary...every person has moral standards. This was implicit in my response, because a person's moral standards are defined by their answers to moral questions.

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

Morality is just a word that we humans made up to describe right and wrong. A person can either believe that human life evolved through random mutations, or that we had an intelligent creator who made us for a purpose. Without believing in an intelligent creator, it is a fallacy of logic to postulate that the word we created to refer to what a person thinks is right has any meaning beyond what we made it up to have. Because morality is a relative word, it can be applied in reference to any individual, or to the average ideals of any group of people. Of course, the larger and more diverse the group becomes the less accurate the average ideals will become at representing the collective opinion.

 

[Oscar Wilde]

I didn't get that impression at all. I think you're putting too much earnestness into his words.

Besides, he has a point. Many people here talk about saving 1500 lives versus 500. Easy to say from an armchair.

Everybody seems to think the solution is a no-brainer. All they're doing is counting numbers.

Nonsense.

But put a detonator in their hand, tell them there's 500 innocent people lashed to the business end, and see if they still think it's just numbers.

cuz if it is just a numbers game to these very real posters, I weep for our future.

Men may construe things after their own fashion.

Anyways, I see where you and others are coming from. There is some legitimacy to the idea of to kill or not to kill, and though you cite that "everybody" counts numbers, far fewer people subscribe to the Utilitarian ethics. And for a reason I suppose- I understand that situations exceed 'numbers', and that killing is an act that runs deeper than the body count afterwards.

I simply thought that, under the original scenario given to us, I would rather have 1000 live than let all 1500 die. There was no option that allowed for the survival of everyone. If there was, I would have taken it instantly; I take no pleasure in planning the demise of people in my imagination, or in real life. Killing is not something I take lightly.

 

[superwolf]

Morality is just a word that we humans made up to describe right and wrong.

Which brings us to the question: "what is right and wrong?" If we didn't know, why the need for words to describe them? Without definitions, the words are superfluous.

When person A says "that is wrong", it may mean "that gives me a bad feeling".
When person B says "that is wrong", it may mean "that is contradictory to the Bible".
When person C says "that is wrong", it may mean "that does not maximixe happiness or minimize suffering".

I think there is no need to talk about what is right and wrong unless we point out a framework, for instance utilitarianism. Whether utilitarianism is a better moral system than all the others, cannot be proven.

 

[junglebeast]

Which brings us to the question: "what is right and wrong?" If we didn't know, why the need for words to describe them? Without definitions, the words are superfluous.

Ignoring all the other contextual definitions, right = in accordance with a moral code, and wrong = in discordance with the moral code. But it's all relative to the moral code. You're either comparing it to an individual's moral code, or the mean of the distribution of the moral values of a group of people, or some absolute standard that you believe to be greater than humans -- but in order to believe in the latter, it is implicit that it is the moral standard laid down by some creator, because there would not be any other higher standard that exists outside of humanity.

 

[DaveC426913]

You may be right, but your argument is a fallacy. The fact that people disagree on a topic doesn't mean ultimate truths don't exist.

When it comes to morality, yes it does. Morality is a human concept. Since there are 6 billion of us, there cannot be an absolute truth.

 

[superwolf]

Ignoring all the other contextual definitions, right = in accordance with a moral code, and wrong = in discordance with the moral code. But it's all relative to the moral code. You're either comparing it to an individual's moral code, or the mean of the distribution of the moral values of a group of people, or some absolute standard that you believe to be greater than humans -- but in order to believe in the latter, it is implicit that it is the moral standard laid down by some creator, because there would not be any other higher standard that exists outside of humanity.

That's rather circular, isn't it?

Morals are invented to describe right and wrong, and right and wrong are defined as in (dis)accordance with the moral code...

You're either comparing it to an individual's moral code, or the mean of the distribution of the moral values of a group of people, or some absolute standard that you believe to be greater than humans -- but in order to believe in the latter, it is implicit that it is the moral standard laid down by some creator, because there would not be any other higher standard that exists outside of humanity.

Even if God invented morals, I can still disagree with him.

 

[superwolf]

Here's a contradiction that my flatmate and moral relativits cate up with the other day:

"Since morals are relative to each society, we should not intervene and tell them how they should behave."

Quote funny, isn't it?


How many people would have to be on the railway for it to be moral to sacrifice the fat man? And is it justifiable to kill an innocent to prevent a terrorist attack? What's the difference between the terrorist scenario and the fat guy scenario?

A ship has stroke an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it becomame obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. What should be done?

 

[Hurkyl]

How strange that you see a weakness where I see a strength in the argument.

If logical fallacies are the strength of your argument, then you don't have one.

The point I'm making is that there is a very good reason for it being difficult. The reason is because it is morally reprehensible to kill people, let alone 500 of them.

It looks more like the manifestation of a conditioned response to "normal" situations inappropriately applied to an "abnormal" situation. Right or wrong, the difficulty does not stem from the reprehensibility of the act.

And aren't you being circular in the first place? Your argument can only possibly work if someone already believes in your conclusion!

Oh, here's another similar conundrum, again Batman!



What to do if you were in the situation, but didn't have a convenient off-screen disposal point?

 

[a4mula]

Here's a contradiction that my flatmate and moral relativits cate up with the other day:

"Since morals are relative to each society, we should not intervene and tell them how they should behave."

Quote funny, isn't it?


How many people would have to be on the railway for it to be moral to sacrifice the fat man? And is it justifiable to kill an innocent to prevent a terrorist attack? What's the difference between the terrorist scenario and the fat guy scenario?

A ship has stroke an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it becomame obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. What should be done?

This entire thread is riddled with people confusing morals and ethics. Morality is relative to each individual. Ethics are relative to each societal representation. Only man can judge his own morality.

There is no right or wrong moral answer here. There is no universal morality. There are no universal ethics either! There is no absolute truth when it comes to definitions of language. Right, Wrong, Indifferent. They're all shades of grey that we as individuals must seek for ourselves.

This is why we have law. Law is indifferent to both morality and ethics. We set a standard of living and while that standard might not be moral or ethical on all accounts we agree to abide by it. Abortion (personal) is immoral to many people, yet it is legal. Lobbying (societal representation) is unethical to many people, yet it is legal.

We often times use morality as a soapbox for righteousness. This is a travesty. What any single one of us deems as moral could be construed as quiet immoral by the next. This question exposes the prejudices that we each hold. At the end of the day that's all morality really is.

I find it somewhat intriguing that we used a Dark Knight reference here. If nothing else Batman as seen in these latest movies was the epitome of defying universal morality. Yet here we are in the same thread trying to shoebox right and wrong, trying to force morals to fit into our own preconceived notions of what they should be. One of the largest flaws with people today is that we honestly believe that we are Right. Anyone that believes different than us must therefore be wrong. It happens all over the globe. We are quick to shove our beliefs and morality down the throats of others and if they don't openly accept them...

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

Until they decide to have a different belief system anyways.

 

[Huckleberry]

If logical fallacies are the strength of your argument, then you don't have one.


It looks more like the manifestation of a conditioned response to "normal" situations inappropriately applied to an "abnormal" situation. Right or wrong, the difficulty does not stem from the reprehensibility of the act.

And aren't you being circular in the first place? Your argument can only possibly work if someone already believes in your conclusion!

Oh, here's another similar conundrum, again Batman!



What to do if you were in the situation, but didn't have a convenient off-screen disposal point?

I disagree that there is no difference between reality and theory when it comes to subjective ideas such as morality. I believe the logical fallacy would be to assume that moral judgements are objective. The reason that it makes a difference whether the decision maker is in a real situation or a theoretical one is because the perception of the decision maker has changed drastically, and so too will his judgement in many cases. If the decision maker is independent of the process of choosing morality then it is more of a general consensus of the public that is passing judgement on him, in which case a statement would fulfill the needs of the theory and asking a question that places the reader in the place of the person doing the murdering would be unnecessary. So asking the question of a person assumes that they answer as if the situation were real, which would not be answered from the same frame of mind as they are while reading the question. It asks us to take into consideration the state of mind of the decision maker, just as juries are asked to do in courts. Empathy plays a major role in morality.

Yes, subjective arguments are often logically circular. Subjective arguments do not always follow linear paths. They are about observing patterns and, in this case, inserting the appropriate principle (or conditioned response) for the situation based on the reprehensibility of the act. Murder is reprehensible for subjective reasons. When the difficulty to act or not act outweighs the usefulness of the principle then the Joker gets what he wants. What is appropriate is debatable.

People are more forgiving of the perpetrators of accidental or wrongful death than they are of murder. (I forgot why I wanted to add this, but it seemed important when I thought it. So I added it anyway.)

 

[DaveC426913]

If logical fallacies are the strength of your argument, then you don't have one.

But it's not a fallacy.

We start with the general premise with which we all (excepting sociopaths) agree: that, all other things being equal, it is wrong to kill another person. This is the foundation.

Does that change because we introduce some possibly mitigating factors? My point is that the promises of a madman do not constitute a mitigating factor.

You think that our revulsion to killing as a factor is fallacious i.e. not relevant. My point is that it is the most important thing because it is a manifestation of our morality - one we can't avoid even if we try.



Everyone is playing this like it's a numbers game. They are answering the question what is the most effiicient? What answer would a robot give? They are side-stepping the question of morality.

 

[superwolf]

Does the fat man on the bridge have more right to live than the five men on the railway? Certainly, most people will say that it's wrong to throw the fat guy down to save the five, but could this be an ethical illusion?

 

[junglebeast]

That's rather circular, isn't it?

Morals are invented to describe right and wrong, and right and wrong are defined as in (dis)accordance with the moral code...

No, it's not circular at all. They are all just synonyms for the same concept that we made up, and some of them have different parts of speech.

Even if God invented morals, I can still disagree with him.

Yes, you can disagree with him..but once you realize that there is no absolute moral codebook that is ingrained into the nature of the universe, it becomes a question of personal opinion that depends on all the nuances of the situation.

If you rephrase the question from "Is it moral..." to "Do you find it moral..." (ie, relative to the individual's perspective), it's still not answerable because your own moral standards are constantly changing based on your experiences. Any conscious action a person makes must implicitly pass their moral values, although the experience of making that action and observing the consequences could very easily modify the person's moral values to consider that action immoral (retrospectively), and causing regret or shame.

This is after all how our morals are formed to begin with. An unborn child has no morals, it must learn them.

 

[superwolf]

Even if a god created the universe, there it does not mean that his moral values should apply in it. Even not gods can make morals objective.

 

[mheslep]

But it's not a fallacy.

We start with the general premise with which we all (excepting sociopaths) agree: that, all other things being equal, it is wrong to kill another person. ...

...wrong to murder another person..., then you have me aboard.

As dramatized in the Big Red One, 1980

Griff: "I can't murder anybody."
The Sergeant: "We don't murder; we kill."
Griff: "It's the same thing."
The Sergeant: "The hell it is, Griff. You don't murder animals; you kill 'em."

 

[superwolf]

And the difference is that killing is not necessarily intentional?

 

[junglebeast]

Even if a god created the universe, there it does not mean that his moral values should apply in it. Even not gods can make morals objective.

Do you also believe that humans can create new fundamental forces, or new types of fundamental particles, just by wishing it?

It's the same thing...either the concepts of right and wrong are a fundamental PART of the universe that existed before humans, or they were made up by humans.

If the concept was made up by humans, then it is impossible to make an absolute objective codebook of morals because it would be biased by the people(s) who made it.

Therefore, you cannot possibly believe in an objective moral right and wrong without also believing in God.

 

[superwolf]

Do you also believe that humans can create new fundamental forces, or new types of fundamental particles, just by wishing it?

Of course not, and I agree. I didn't intend to claim that humans can make morals objective. I just reckon that a powerful creator does not have this ability either.

Therefore, you cannot possibly believe in an objective moral right and wrong without also believing in God.

You can, but not without being irrational.Believing in God is no excuse, it does not make the concept of objective morality more rational, and besides the whole idea of God is irrational itself.

 

[mheslep]

And the difference is that killing is not necessarily intentional?

Yes, either
1) that it is unintentional by means of accident or incompetence on the part of the actor, or
2) that it is unavoidable,the cost of inaction being a greater evil, even more death, e.g. immediate self defence or war, the judgement being made that this is the case only by process of law, when available.

I hope that killing remains repugnant, even when it is not murder as excused in 1) or 2)

 

[superwolf]

Yes, either
1) that it is unintentional by means of accident or incompetence on the part of the actor, or
2) that it is unavoidable,the cost of inaction being a greater evil, even more death, e.g. immediate self defence or war, the judgement being made that this is the case only by process of law, when available.

Which means that it was wrong to sentence the captain in this case for manslaughter:

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive. The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved. Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die. The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action. If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?

 

[mheslep]

My 1),2) were for discriminating between murder and killing. So falling under 1),2) means one escapes murder, but not necessarily another charge like manslaughter. Manslaughter is not murder but, best as I am able to describe, negligent killing. Doesn't sound like manslaughter was warranted for the lifeboat lifeboat facts, though I wonder if there's more to the story, like getting himself carelessly into an avoidable position of hitting the iceberg in the first place. That might very well warrant the charge.

 

[superwolf]

Which means manslaughter is not necessarily wrong, and thus is not sufficient reason to sentence someone.

 

[mheslep]

Which means manslaughter is not necessarily wrong, and thus is not sufficient reason to sentence someone.

?? One can not conclude that from what I've posted here.

 

[superwolf]

If you are an utilitarian like me.

 

[junglebeast]

Of course not, and I agree. I didn't intend to claim that humans can make morals objective. I just reckon that a powerful creator does not have this ability either.

You can, but not without being irrational.Believing in God is no excuse, it does not make the concept of objective morality more rational, and besides the whole idea of God is irrational itself.

I don't believe a creator is rational, and I understand your point about a creator not being objective either. That all depends on your definition of objectivity. I was merely trying to argue the case that there does not exist an objective truth. Now it seems you are agreeing to that finally, so I'm not sure why you fought the other side for so long...

So, now that you agree that there is no objective moral standard, why are you still asking moral questions? Why are you trying to define the limits of something that is constantly relative and changing to everyone?