Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Survival is not a moral dilemma.




    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Punisher1984 View Post
      You do know that this would ring hollow in the ears of the deceased's loved ones, do you?
      Only if they were immoral fools.
      Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
      TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

      Comment


      • #33
        What ever happened to heroes?

        We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.
        Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
        TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Knight View Post
          The greater evil would be for me to actively participate in the crime, which would make me a criminal and add to the tragedy for the victims.
          In this situation, inaction has a higher price than choosing the lesser evil. Inaction is a cause of evil in the same way that any one action is, except it leads to a greater evil.

          Do you think the families of the ten victims would be comforted by your decision to do nothing more than they would be comforted by having their loved ones kept alive?
          "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

          "The best things in life aren't things"

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Granite View Post
            Survival is not a moral dilemma.
            Why not?

            And keep in mind that it is not your survival at question here, but that of either one loved one, or ten strangers.
            "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

            "The best things in life aren't things"

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
              Why not?

              An keep in mind that it is not your survival at question here, but that of either one loved one, or ten strangers.
              Saving the life of the woman I love is not, in my mind, a dilemma. I would do whatever possible to see to it.




              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by EvilIsOnlyAConcept View Post
                To kill me and let them all go. If they refuse I would ask that the ten be set free. I don't fear death and would rather give 10 people the chance to live and be inspired by my sacrifice to live good lives and make something good of themselves. If you want to bring morals into it I would still do the same because the less suffering in the world the better. 2 lives compared to 10. Simple.
                I would like to think that I would do the same, in one sense any responsibility for the lives of these people is absolved because those with their fingers on the trigger are ultimately responsible for such a crime regardless of any decision I might make, but as pragmatic as could be possible in such a situation I would theoretically have to go with numbers in terms of answering the OP, in real life and in that situation I couldn't in all honesty know for sure what I would do however....

                ironically though it would have been a much harder question in terms of morality were it one stranger v a loved one, I've no doubt I would pick my loved one although the strangers life is of equal value.....
                "Either these curtains go or I do...."

                - Oscar Wilde on deathbed

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by mighty_duck View Post
                  I've tried it before, and got only these types of dodges.

                  You may have more success with a similar scenario, where one is forced to do the greater good instead of choose the lesser evil (which amounts to the same thing).

                  Consider this:
                  Our band of evil ethic terrorists have captured 10 men and your loved one, and poisoned them. They put the 10 and the one in two separate locations, and given you the antidote. You only have time to reach one group. It is the middle of the desert, so you won't be able to get help and save all of them. What do you do, save your loved one or save 10 people?

                  [absolutist]
                  Dodge the question! (And you're an idiot!)
                  [/absolutists]

                  My answer would remain exactly the same.
                  I see... Since the absolutists here are being uncooperative I'll show my hand now.

                  Since I see the individual as the one who ultimately ascribes value to anything (or anyone), I will select the person/persons I ascribe more value to. In my case, I prize my loved ones over any stranger and so will save the one I value instead of the ones I don't.

                  But it doesn't stop there - for even though the one I value is out of immediate danger there's no guarantee that the danger won't rear its head later and undo what my decision had salvaged from difficult circumstances: thus I need take measures to ensure that the danger is neutralized. At the beginning of the scenario, I stated that fighting back wasn't an option but if you let the ten die you and the loved one in question would be free - and with freedom comes a brand new list of options, including returning home to arm myself (and I have an armory in my basement) and turning the tables on the deranged gunmen.

                  Now, like I said before, the gunmen are just a plot device: substitute "gunmen" with anything else that has the potential to harm that which you value and the priciple remains the same - I sacrifice those I don't value to save myself and mine, and in the process I attain the power to ensure that the danger can be eliminated to further protect those I value.
                  "When you realize what a joke everything is being the comedian is the only thing that makes any sense" - Edward Blake

                  "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Nietzsche

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Knight View Post
                    Only if they were immoral fools.
                    You do know that most people don't share your version of "morality," right?
                    "When you realize what a joke everything is being the comedian is the only thing that makes any sense" - Edward Blake

                    "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Nietzsche

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Granite View Post
                      Saving the life of the woman I love is not, in my mind, a dilemma. I would do whatever possible to see to it.
                      Then you have solved the dilemma in a very certain way, using a certain moral framework.

                      How do you think your woman would take it, knowing her life cost ten others their life (or a hundred, or a million)?
                      "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                      "The best things in life aren't things"

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        What ever happened to heroes?
                        "Heroes" are just people who behave in a manner consitent with the ideal values of their society under pressure to do otherwise - and one man's "hero" may very well be a "villian" to a man who doesn't share the values he espouses.

                        Originally posted by Knight View Post
                        We are raising a generation of cowards and fools.
                        And just who defines those?
                        "When you realize what a joke everything is being the comedian is the only thing that makes any sense" - Edward Blake

                        "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." - Nietzsche

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Cowards need not apply.

                          I wont back down
                          Also be sure to.... Join TOL on Facebook | Follow TOL on Twitter
                          TOL Newbies CLICK HERE or....upgrade your TOL today!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by Punisher1984 View Post
                            I sacrifice those I don't value to save myself and mine, and in the process I attain the power to ensure that the danger can be eliminated to further protect those I value.
                            If this was your goal, then I suggest you go the route of the "poison" scenario. Even fundies acknowledge that you must do the greater good, and may cooperate if a personal or absolutist cause is the greater good. I wouldn't bet on it though...

                            Do you put any value in strangers though? Would changing the amount of people (from 10 to a million, for example) change your decision?

                            If you place no value in complete strangers, would you kill a man to get his wallet (a form of empowerment) assuming there is no chance you would get caught?
                            "What if the Hokie Pokie is really what it's all about?"

                            "The best things in life aren't things"

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by Punisher1984 View Post
                              Except the blood of the person/persons that could have been set free had you not been stubborn...


                              Once again I must ask why the blood would be on Knight's hands?

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by Punisher1984 View Post
                                So, you are admitting that you find some lives to have more worth than others - the 2 old men being worth less than that of the children? If that's so, you are heading in a direction similar to the one I took pondering this dillema.



                                So it appears, but I'll allow a little more time for an answer.
                                It's not a matter of the lives being "worth" more. It's a matter of personal involvement. Those are two different things. The strangers have the same value.

                                If the gunmen were shooting wildly, I would choose to jump in front of my sister instead of the young mother next to me. But if my sister wasn't there, I would probably still jump in front of the young mother...not because I have an emotional attachment to her, but my personal instincts are to help others.

                                I would find it just as hard to let a stranger die as a family member...but I would refuse to make the choice between saving my one family member or ten strangers. Any resulting deaths are the responsibility of the gunmen, not me. I will not answer for their sin.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X