Immiment Death Question

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

You really don't see the problem with your thinking, do you? Why does the ability to do something neccessarily imply responsibility over the outcome of an event even when you don't do anything? You've dodged this question repeatedly, and until you can answer it I don't see what basis there is for your perspective.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Because to me, you are -DECIDING- to do nothing.

If you have the ability to effect the outcome, and KNOW you have the ability to effect the outcome, you are now already a part of the situation. And whether you decide to effect the situation, or decide to not effect the situation, you are equally responsible because you could effect the situation, and know you could effect the situation.

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

A burning building doesn't present the dilemma that has been the focal point of this thread

Dude, it's a JOKE. Live with it.

I might have to make tough decisions about who to save, but it's not the same as choosing to set fire to a building with 10 people in it in order to somehow prevent a building with 50 people in it from burning, which would be the burning building equivalent of this question.

Now THAT would be outright murder, not to mention arson.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Because to me, you are -DECIDING- to do nothing.

Yes. You are. Now, how can DECISIONS which do not lead to actions have MORAL VALUE? As far as I am aware only actions can have moral value.

If you have the ability to effect the outcome, and KNOW you have the ability to effect the outcome, you are now already a part of the situation. And whether you decide to effect the situation, or decide to not effect the situation, you are equally responsible because you could effect the situation, and know you could effect the situation.

Right. So again, you're arguing that because you have the ability to do something, you are responsible for the outcome of a situation. You have yet to explain WHY.

Do you have any idea how absurd this way of thinking becomes if you apply it to every conceivable set of circumstances? I become responsible for EVERYTHING I don't do which could conceivably have benefited the future, even in some vague, undetermined way.

Look, I know I have the ability to study medicine and save the lives of countless people. Does that make it immoral for me to not become a doctor? No, that's absurd. My obligations are not synonomous with my abilities.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Yes. You are. Now, how can DECISIONS which do not lead to actions have MORAL VALUE? As far as I am aware only actions can have moral value.

-CHOOSING- not to effect the situation -IS- an action. In the same way that you can commit a Lie of Omission (you didn't actually lie, you just elected to not say anything) Inaction is just as much an action as anything else. You have made the conscious choice in a situation where you can -directly- effect events, to take the action of "doing nothing" and so that confers at least -some- responsibility.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying you are suddenly solely and completely liable for every consequence of every action you could have effected but didn't. If you see someone roughing up an old lady, and run away instead of helping her, I'm not saying you are guilty of assault and robbery, I'm saying that you can't duck out completely of any responsibility at all.

Just as you argue that because I -can- become a doctor, that doesn't make it immoral for me to become anything but a doctor, I'm not extending my claims of responsibility into -theoretical- effects.

To present my opinion as though I'm saying "Because I could potentially become a doctor and potentially save lives, I'm morally obliged to become a doctor" which is absurd, straw man and not what I'm saying at all, it would be a better comparison to say "I -AM- a doctor, and someone is wounded and about to die, and instead of helping them, I "don't interfere"" Surely you would admit that the doctor carries at least -some- kind of responsibility if the person dies and they made no effort at all to help them.

I'm not sure how else to explain my position: Some equivocation about how you're just "letting nature take its course" and "deciding not to interfere" doesn't cut it for me, when you are in an immidiate situation where you can directly act and have a direct effect on the events transpiring -right now-

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

-CHOOSING- not to effect the situation -IS- an action. In the same way that you can commit a Lie of Omission (you didn't actually lie, you just elected to not say anything) Inaction is just as much an action as anything else. You have made the conscious choice in a situation where you can -directly- effect events, to take the action of "doing nothing" and so that confers at least -some- responsibility.

Only if the act of thinking without consciously acting to take effect on something can still have an effect on something. Lack of action will always be lack of action, even if it was an action that lead to this lack of action.

Bear in mind that I'm not saying you are suddenly solely and completely liable for every consequence of every action you could have effected but didn't. If you see someone roughing up an old lady, and run away instead of helping her, I'm not saying you are guilty of assault and robbery, I'm saying that you can't duck out completely of any responsibility at all.

Why? I'm not the guy who did those things. I'm not responsible for other peoples wellbeing or other peoples actions. Why does my awareness of their lack of wellbeing or of their actions change this? It doesn't make any sense.

Just as you argue that because I -can- become a doctor, that doesn't make it immoral for me to become anything but a doctor, I'm not extending my claims of responsibility into -theoretical- effects.

Whenever we're judging our actions by their assumed future consequent we are dealing entirely with hypotheticals. Sure, probability may come into play, but since the future is not determined that ultimately means nothing since there are certainly instances when you can flip a coin and have it land on its side.

To present my opinion as though I'm saying "Because I could potentially become a doctor and potentially save lives, I'm morally obliged to become a doctor" which is absurd, straw man and not what I'm saying at all,

It's a reductio ad absurdum. The point is that it's absurd. It isn't a straw man, I honestly just don't think you've thought out your opinion.

I'll explain soon.

it would be a better comparison to say "I -AM- a doctor, and someone is wounded and about to die, and instead of helping them, I "don't interfere"" Surely you would admit that the doctor carries at least -some- kind of responsibility if the person dies and they made no effort at all to help them.

Nope, I wouldn't. At least not in the most general sense. However, doctors generally swear themselves to try and help people, and this makes helping people their duty, so in instances where doctors violate this duty they carry responsibility.

I'm not sure how else to explain my position: Some equivocation about how you're just "letting nature take its course" and "deciding not to interfere" doesn't cut it for me, when you are in an immidiate situation where you can directly act and have a direct effect on the events transpiring -right now-

An here I pick up where I left off and explain why my criticism is not a straw man.

There is virtually no such thing as direct action and direct consequent. Let's go back to our train conundrum. You think through what's happening, then say you take an action based on this thought. Your thoughts have caused an action. So you flip the switch, which activates a mechanism which changes the tracks. The train, which is operated by an engineer, continues to run. It's engine combusts fuel, which turns a crank, which moves the engines wheels.

Let's stop for a second and think about how many people had a hand in creating the events that are currently occuring. There is the constructors of the train tracks, the builders of the train, the funders of these projects, the managers of these workers, the fathers and mothers and brothers and sisters of all of these people. Not to mention the person responsible for putting these people on the tracks in the first place.

Do you really mean to tell me that by thinking to yourself and refraining from actively contributing to the current situation, you're responsible in any real way? Are these other people responsible? They actively contributed to the current situation. You aren't even taking an action.

Now, the sole principled distinction you've tried to make is that awareness of a potential outcome places responsibility for the outcome on you whether or not you take action. So, given even the elaborate chain of cause and effect between switching the tracks, I ask you this:

What's the difference between the future doctor scenario and the train scenario? The only difference is more degrees of seperation. The element of awareness of outcome remains there, which was the sole obligating mechanism you proposed.

As I said before, not a straw man, I just don't think you thought this through.



edit: off to class

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I guess I'll stop trying to explain it then? At least that way I'm no longer responsible for you misunderstanding my position, because I've decided to take no action, and just let things take their course.

I mean..I -could- decide to try to explain my position another way in the hopes that you'd understand it, but I'm not responsible for your inability to understand my position as long as I don't actually try to explain it.

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

He's kinda right Dev, this is a hard one to explain. However Kilroy, he explained EVERYTHING that you asked him to. Wether your actually gonna TRY to understand is your problem.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I guess I'll stop trying to explain it then? At least that way I'm no longer responsible for you misunderstanding my position, because I've decided to take no action, and just let things take their course.

I mean..I -could- decide to try to explain my position another way in the hopes that you'd understand it, but I'm not responsible for your inability to understand my position as long as I don't actually try to explain it.

That's right. There's a question as to whether or not that violates your socratic duty as a philosopher, or whether by getting involved in the conversation in the first place you've taken away this non-action clause, but it's reasonable to make this as a starting assumption.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

He's kinda right Dev, this is a hard one to explain. However Kilroy, he explained EVERYTHING that you asked him to. Wether your actually gonna TRY to understand is your problem.

He's proposing a formulation of a rule to be taken not because it can be proven, but because it can be used to prove other things which are desirable to be proved and are argued to be part of a sound model. This is fine, it's done all the time in both philosophy and science, and I would assume math as well.

However, if the rule results in peculiarities which cannot be addressed by the rule itself, this method of constructing truth doesn't pass the test.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I think we're just at yet another "Devonin used a word in not the best way to use the word" impasse. To me, being in general a moral/ethical philospher by training, I use the word 'responsible' in a way that isn't quite as value-laden as when most people use it.

In the same way that absolutely anything which one considers when making a moral judgement is said to be 'morally significant' without necessary attaching a value of just -how- significant (humans and mice are both morally significant to me, but in general, humans more than mice) when I say that someone is morally responsible for an action, I don't mean (as I said previously) "fully responsible" in a "Whatever happens is your -fault-" sense but rather that they, by being knowledgeable of the situation, and being aware of the fact that they can effect the situation are a part of the situation and being a part of the situation are now in some ways "responsible" for making the decision to act or refrain from acting.

Though obviously context of sentence makes this not work precisely, if you did a find/replace for every instance of mine of "responsible" you instead said "involved" you woudln't be too far off what I'm trying to get at.

[Manmademusic]

Re: Immiment Death Question

He's proposing a formulation of a rule to be taken not because it can be proven, but because it can be used to prove other things which are desirable to be proved and are argued to be part of a sound model. This is fine, it's done all the time in both philosophy and science, and I would assume math as well.

However, if the rule results in peculiarities which cannot be addressed by the rule itself, this method of constructing truth doesn't pass the test.

Dude, you think too much. Sure, this is the critical thinking forum, but there IS such thing as overkill. If you want people to understand what the heck your saying, THEN PUT IT IN SIMPLER TERMS.

[newtown]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I'll pull the god darn lever.
Just think, one person is going to die if you pull the lever, but it's just one, and it could be a druggie anyway.

[devonin]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Dude, you think too much. Sure, this is the critical thinking forum, but there IS such thing as overkill. If you want people to understand what the heck your saying, THEN PUT IT IN SIMPLER TERMS.

Actually I understood what he was saying perfectly well. He and I have chatted in PMs and have a better understanding of where one another are coming from with respect to training and education in philosophy, and while he and I are both prone to being unnecessarily wordy in general, I think we just both use discussion with each other as a way to really get into the nuts and bolts of formal logical argument.

Heck, at least once we continued on for a few dozen posts on a topic that I'm pretty sure we actually agree on in principle, just for the sake of the exercise. Someone who can play a very strong Devil's Advocate is a damn handy thing to have around.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I don't mean (as I said previously) "fully responsible" in a "Whatever happens is your -fault-" sense but rather that they, by being knowledgeable of the situation, and being aware of the fact that they can effect the situation are a part of the situation and being a part of the situation are now in some ways "responsible" for making the decision to act or refrain from acting.

I think in some senses it's entirely possible to argue that by nature of existing, people are neccessarily potentially part of every situation, and that since anything a human being does regardless of direct effect or lack thereof might not be determined, the determination of the world through human action might make any form of existence related to any given actuality.

I sort of wish I knew more about quantum physics, and I'm certainly not going to try and pretend "what the **** do we know" is legitimate anything, so I'm just going to have to say as far as I can tell this possibility I've outlined is completely unsubstantiated and hypothetical.

Though obviously context of sentence makes this not work precisely, if you did a find/replace for every instance of mine of "responsible" you instead said "involved" you woudln't be too far off what I'm trying to get at.

This might be closer to your meaning, but I still think the conclusions you're trying to draw are a bit outside the ability to derive using your methods. Responsibility and involvement now have a distinction between them and are not biconditionally equivalent, but I still don't understand passive involvement to imply responsibility except in circumstances where a duty was voluntarily imposed by a person onto themselves. I also still maintain that regardless of level of involvment, there are virtually no circumstances in which it could be the sound duty of anyone to sacrifice the life of an unwilling person in exchange for anything, even the lives of other persons. Self-defense is the only exception that immediately springs to mind.