A dillema for the "moral" Absolutist...

[Gerald]

If it means victorty over a foreign invader - or a not-so-foreign one - so be it: I'll use any tactic at my disposal international law be damned.

Would it be out of line to conclude that you assume that your enemy will be equally perfidious?

 

[Punisher1984]

Would it be out of line to conclude that you assume that your enemy will be equally perfidious?

Towards what? If by that you mean towards the entity known as the state, I never had much trust in them anyway. If you mean towards my local community, then no - I look out for the best interests of myself and mine, and my community happens to fall in that sphere.

 

[Orangechipper]

I haven't read through every reply, but let me just say that this scenario is bogus.

In this scenario this person is FORCED to do an immoral act. No matter what the person does, someone is going to die. That has nothing to do with the absoluteness of the forcers. They are still wrong.

For example, if someone FORCES sex on a 10 year old girl, she can't be guilty of premarital sex. See??? If door A is opened, 1 person rapes her... if door B is opened, 10 people rape her. If she stays put, 11 people rape her... WHO CARES! She is still a victim and cannot be deemed guilty. She is forced.

Just because we love people more than another person does not mean its less or more moral to kill them.

 

[Punisher1984]

I haven't read through every reply, but let me just say that this scenario is bogus.

In this scenario this person is FORCED to do an immoral act. No matter what the person does, someone is going to die. That has nothing to do with the absoluteness of the forcers. They are still wrong.

For example, if someone FORCES sex on a 10 year old girl, she can't be guilty of premarital sex. See??? If door A is opened, 1 person rapes her... if door B is opened, 10 people rape her. If she stays put, 11 people rape her... WHO CARES! She is still a victim and cannot be deemed guilty. She is forced.

Just because we love people more than another person does not mean its less or more moral to kill them.

But that doesn't answer the question as to what *you* (as an absolutist) would do in this situation.

 

[Orangechipper]

What would I do? Hmmm..

If I KNEW my loved one/friend/relative were a believer and because I know, being separate from the body means presence with the Lord. I would let my friend die. If I KNEW my friend was not yet a believer... I would likely let him live. For I know nothing of the beliefs of the other 10. They may or may not be believers.

 

[mighty_duck]

What would I do? Hmmm..

If I KNEW my loved one/friend/relative were a believer and because I know, being separate from the body means presence with the Lord. I would let my friend die. If I KNEW my friend was not yet a believer... I would likely let him live. For I know nothing of the beliefs of the other 10. They may or may not be believers.

So you're saying that in certain situations, it is morally acceptable to order a gunman to shoot an innocent (or ten innocents). While I wholeheartedly agree with you, what is left of absolute morality after this?

 

[Orangechipper]

So you're saying that in certain situations, it is morally acceptable to order a gunman to shoot an innocent (or ten innocents). While I wholeheartedly agree with you, what is left of absolute morality after this?

No it would be absolutely wrong in both situations from the forcer. The forcee cannot commit a morally wrong or right action when they are the ones forced. Just as a victim of rape can nor should be accused of premarital or extramarital sex.

 

[mighty_duck]

No it would be absolutely wrong in both situations from the forcer. The forcee cannot commit a morally wrong or right action when they are the ones forced. Just as a victim of rape can nor should be accused of premarital or extramarital sex.

The forcers are not important to this discussion, so we can ignore the moral implications of their actions on them.

As for the "forcee", it is not identical to a rape victim (even if there are certain similarities). No one needs to be physically restraining them. We can turn this hypothetical in to a much more clinical affair if need be. The "forcee" is given a choice, whether to order the death of one, ten or do something else (in which case all eleven will be killed). They need not order the killings, so they are not forced.

If you are claiming that situations can force our hand, then you are in fact admitting that relative to certain situations all acts can be considered moral - which is the death knell of absolutism.

 

[Punisher1984]

What would I do? Hmmm..

If I KNEW my loved one/friend/relative were a believer and because I know, being separate from the body means presence with the Lord. I would let my friend die. If I KNEW my friend was not yet a believer... I would likely let him live. For I know nothing of the beliefs of the other 10. They may or may not be believers.

So, you'd let your loved one die if he/she shaerd your religious beliefs, but not if he/she didn't - and you judge the other ten based soley upon what religion (or lack thereof) they practice?

I suppose this says it all...

 

[Edmond_Dantes]

The problem is the op presented this scenario as a 'moral dilemma' absolutists don't have moral dilemmas, that's sort of the point. Does that mean we don't do the wrong thing sometimes? Absolutely not! We simply do not justify our actions to appease our minds or fool ourselves.

What would I do? If you're taking away my ability to resist I'd probably save my wife. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but I made a vow to her. Right and wrong have very little to do with math. A little leaven leavens the whole loaf. As an absolutist I see the evil already done on the part of the evil men.

 

[Punisher1984]

The problem is the op presented this scenario as a 'moral dilemma' absolutists don't have moral dilemmas, that's sort of the point. Does that mean we don't do the wrong thing sometimes? Absolutely not! We simply do not justify our actions to appease our minds or fool ourselves.

What would I do? If you're taking away my ability to resist I'd probably save my wife. I'm not saying this is right or wrong but I made a vow to her. Right and wrong have very little to do with math. A little leaven leavens the whole loaf. As an absolutist I see the evil already done on the part of the evil men.

Sounds to me like you just follow the path to save your own, but then push the responsibility for that decision to another party...

 

[Frank Ernest]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

The armed lunatics are morally responsible for their actions -- absolutely. So the answer is to refuse to answer -- absolutely.

 

[Orangechipper]

Oy. Ya'll just don't get it.

You might as well be asking someone to make a square circle or green time.

You are asking someone to willfully do something beyond their will.

Put another way. You are asking someone to make a choice when they have no choice.

The scenario contradicts itself. Someone cannot even begin to make a moral CHOICE when its not a CHOICE!

 

[Granite]

Oy. Ya'll just don't get it.

You might as well be asking someone to make a square circle or green time.

You are asking someone to willfully do something beyond their will.

Put another way. You are asking someone to make a choice when they have no choice.

The scenario contradicts itself. Someone cannot even begin to make a moral CHOICE when its not a CHOICE!

It's a choice, all right: either you and your loved one die, or you don't. This is not terribly complicated.

 

[Punisher1984]

The scenario contradicts itself. Someone cannot even begin to make a moral CHOICE when its not a CHOICE!

Oh, but it is a choice: not a "free" choice (as if those exist anyway...), but a choice nonetheless.

Now, your answer to the question is...?

 

[Clete]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

This is easy. If it is left to me to choose between my the lives of any member of my family and ten strangers, the ten strangers die. If it is a hundred strangers, they die too, if a thousand or a million it doesn't matter. The entire world can die and go to Hell before I concede the life of a single member of my own family.

1 Timothy 5:8 But if anyone does not provide for his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.​

My priority is to God and to my own family - period. If some lunatic wants to blow up the whole world in exchange for my daughter then fine, so be it. That lunatic will stand before God on Judgment Day, just as both my daughter and I will.

Resting in Him,
Clete

 

[quip]

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.


To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

(I'm not sure if this has been covered so, apologies if this be the case.)

This is a difficult and inevitably tragic situation but I don't see where a moral burden (a fervent emotional one perhaps) is necessarily being placed upon you. You didn't create the situation and acting in your own self interest by saving the individual close to you (as I would do.) doesn't justify the burden shift. The killers killed, either ten times or once....the burden is theirs.

 

[Stripe]

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

:yawn:

Either way I am guilty of no wrong.

 

[bybee]

Shoot the person who creates stupid situational ethics scenarios.

 

[bybee]

moral absolute?

moral absolute?

I know that among most people who ascribe to themselves an absolute "moral" system in our culture human life is viewed as something that is of great intrinsic value - it's held up as such that the preservation of it takes priority over anything else. In short, it's often taken for granted that one can't put a price on it. To this assertion, I vehemently disagree and wish to point out that one can put a price on human life - even the vaunted "moral" absolutist.

Consider the following scenario: you are in a public place (mall, office, school, church, etc...) with some one close to you (a parent, sibbling, best friend, significant other, etc...) and suddenly a group of armed lunatics bursts in takes everyone in this gathering place hostage. For amusement, they randomly take ten people you don't know out of the group and place them on their knees - and then take that person of importance to you (parent, sibbling, friend, etc...) and put him/her on the floor apart from the others and then ask you to make a decision...

1. Say the word and the ten strangers will immediately be released to go home, but the person close to you will be shot to pieces as they walk out the door.

2. You and the one close to you can leave immediately, but only after the ten strangers have been killed.

Note: fighting back is out of the question as there are too many of them and you can't match their firepower. So is stalling for time, as the gunmen give you only so much time to reach a decision before they simply eliminate you and the two parties in question.

To the "moral" absolutist I ask you - what is your final answer?

This has nothing to do with moral absolutism. We are presented with choices in life based on other peoples behavior. To defend oneself is a basic moral right. The immoral behavior is manifested by the criminal behavior of the gunmen. For them there is no moral absolute. For you (in the incident cited) there is only one decision open to you . Your moral obligation is to save your own people. This is barely tolerable and you must live with the decision for the rest of your life. But, the situation is not of your creation. Moral absolutes come into play when we are the instigators of the situation. How do I choose to solve a problem of my own making? That is a moral absolute. And that decision I must live with until my judgment day. peace bybee