Immiment Death Question

[goat6707]

Re: Immiment Death Question

It doesn't make it ok, but it does right some wrongs in the process

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

That makes it okay for you to personally execute them?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? By NOT taking any action I'm not responsible for the outcome of the situation either way. By Flipping the switch I'm responsible for PERSONALLY MURDERING ONE PERSON.

[Izzi]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Thats really not what the question is asking guido. You arnt personally executing anyone since its not your metal ball. All in all i think the whole idea of the question is blatantly obvious. If you had to youd save more then less. If someone could come up with a more relistic situation this question might be more relavent.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

The problem is that what you are describing is an action most people would take based on emotion and instinct. It is natural to assume that value comes in quantity and that to save more lives at the cost of one has a greater weight of good.

However, the idea of weighing the value of human beings one against the other is not only philosophically objectionable but morally repugnant. How can we even hope to perform such calculations? Would our instinct serve us more efficiently if we knew the one man was someone society rejects, like a homosexual or a criminal or a mental invalid?

Would our instinct serve us differently altogether if the 5 individuals were hitler youth and the one individual was a pregnant woman doctor?

The types of questions made in this thread reflect only on where the poorness of judgement lies in each individual and in turn where their emotions compensate for an inability to weigh factors which cannot be weighed but by ignorance.

[GuidoHunter]

Re: Immiment Death Question

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? By NOT taking any action I'm not responsible for the outcome of the situation either way. By Flipping the switch I'm responsible for PERSONALLY MURDERING ONE PERSON.

It's the consideration of who they are that's the issue. If you think, "Oh, well, they're bad people, so they should go," you're taking the law into your own hands and executing them because of their past.

If you throw the switch and doom the one guy, it's because you think, "I'm sorry, but I'm trying to save five people, here," you're weighing the consequences and trying to do the most good.

Vigilante justice is illegal. Killing a guy just because he was really bad and the law hadn't yet gotten him is still murder.

The issue here is with saving lives. If you're only consideration is doing the most good, your actions aren't morally reprehensible. If, however, you consider who those people are, personally deem them worthy to die, and then let that happen, you're no longer trying to do the most good; you're trying to do the least evil. You're taking it upon yourself to kill someone instead of save them, and that's committing an evil act.

EDIT (ninja'd):

However, the idea of weighing the value of human beings one against the other is not only philosophically objectionable but morally repugnant.

So why did you suggest that you'd entertain doing just that were you given the choice?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

It's the consideration of who they are that's the issue. If you think, "Oh, well, they're bad people, so they should go," you're taking the law into your own hands and executing them because of their past.

I wouldn't be able to think this because I wouldn't know anything about the people in the issue outlined.

If you throw the switch and doom the one guy, it's because you think, "I'm sorry, but I'm trying to save five people, here," you're weighing the consequences and trying to do the most good.

Human beings aren't capital to be exchanged in commerce, whatever your pretensions are.

Vigilante justice is illegal. Killing a guy just because he was really bad and the law hadn't yet gotten him is still murder.

Killing a guy by legal means or by vigilante justice are essentially the same thing. There is no such thing as legitimate murder, and since pretensions to such are driven by the kind of cost benefit analysis made use of in this thread it doesn't really matter whether they're done by someone in a suit or someone in a mask. This is just a summary execution done by an individual who didn't need to make sure his ignorance was in step with the ignorance of society before acting on his instincts.

The issue here is with saving lives. If you're only consideration is doing the most good, your actions aren't morally reprehensible. If, however, you consider who those people are, personally deem them worthy to die, and then let that happen, you're no longer trying to do the most good; you're trying to do the least evil. You're taking it upon yourself to kill someone instead of save them, and that's committing an evil act.

You still don't get it. It doesn't matter what my thought process is, it isn't until I take an action and commit myself to effecting reality in some way that I can be held accountable by that measure. I'm not killing anyone, I'm just letting the natural state of things persist. I'm letting them die.

The question is do I let some poeple die and another person live, or by taking action do I make one person die to buy the lives of a few others? The type of question that has been asked in this thread is in and of itself morally repugnant because it assumes first of all that human beings can be weighed in terms of value and secondly it suggests both in error and in extreme arrogance that you or I or anyone who is being asked the question is capable of making such calculations.

So why did you suggest that you'd entertain doing just that were you given the choice?

--Guido

http://andy.mikee385.com

I didn't. Reread what I said.

[tha Guardians]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I personally think most people in this world should die. Most people are undeserving of life (not trying to go Jigsaw on you) and this world would be a much better place with less people and less sin. I believe that this planet is not just ours, but should also belong to the billions of animals too. Right now this is a one race planet, and we're bastards for making it that way.

I'd probably let the people die, if I didn't know them.

[talisman]

Re: Immiment Death Question

no **** it's repugnant, but you still have to make it. That's the whole point of the scenario. You must decide between the lives of 5 and the life of 1. You WILL be held responsible in either case, by the arbitrary nature of the scenario itself.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

I personally think most people in this world should die. Most people are undeserving of life (not trying to go Jigsaw on you) and this world would be a much better place with less people and less sin. I believe that this planet is not just ours, but should also belong to the billions of animals too. Right now this is a one race planet, and we're bastards for making it that way.

I'd probably let the people die, if I didn't know them.

That's pretty sadistic of you, and also highly questionable, but you're entitled to your thoughts and your thoughts do not make you guilty for the state of reality if you don't choose to act on them and effect it.

You wouldn't be guilty of anything except perhaps madness, something you are allowed.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

no **** it's repugnant, but you still have to make it. That's the whole point of the scenario. You must decide between the lives of 5 and the life of 1. You WILL be held responsible in either case, by the arbitrary nature of the scenario itself.

Why do I have to make it? Why am I held responsible?

Ability to control does not neccessitate taking an action to control.

[Chrissi]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Why do I have to make it? Why am I held responsible?

Ability to control does not neccessitate taking an action to control.

With great power comes great responsibility, to quote an OWDG (old white dead guy)

[talisman]

Re: Immiment Death Question

Consider a modified scenario.

You have a nuclear bomb. You can either drop it on a bustling city, or on a lonely hermit's hut. You're going to kill less people if you make the latter choice. You must drop the bomb. You can't say "Oh I'm not going to drop the bomb." Because the rules, which are absolute in this hypothetical universe, dictate that you must make the decision to drop the bomb somewhere. The bomb won't go off on it's own if you do nothing, and you're the only one who will be doing the deciding. There is literally no way for you not to choose the hermit or thousands of city denizens to die. It is completely inescapable, because I declare that it's completely inescapable, and I am creating the scenario and am an absolute authority. Now, where do you choose to drop it?

[Izzi]

Re: Immiment Death Question

How the hell did you come to that conclusion? By NOT taking any action I'm not responsible for the outcome of the situation either way. By Flipping the switch I'm responsible for PERSONALLY MURDERING ONE PERSON.

But you are also personally responsible for saving 4.

[Chrissi]

Re: Immiment Death Question

talisman: I see what you did there. You're trying to force the people who previously argued against the common response to go with it in this exaggerated situation.

But that's what it is. An exaggerated situation. Sometimes quantitative changes can change responses.

I wonder if we are going to find anyone who wants to drop the bomb on the city instead of the hut.

[Kilroy_x]

Re: Immiment Death Question

With great power comes great responsibility, to quote an OWDG (old white dead guy)

The type of reasoning found in the quote is precisely what I take issue with. Why is it my responsibility? It certainly isn't simply because I have power, and it definitely isn't because what I'm doing is right.

Consider a modified scenario.

You have a nuclear bomb. You can either drop it on a bustling city, or on a lonely hermit's hut. You're going to kill less people if you make the latter choice. You must drop the bomb. You can't say "Oh I'm not going to drop the bomb." Because the rules, which are absolute in this hypothetical universe, dictate that you must make the decision to drop the bomb somewhere. The bomb won't go off on it's own if you do nothing, and you're the only one who will be doing the deciding. There is literally no way for you not to choose the hermit or thousands of city denizens to die. It is completely inescapable, because I declare that it's completely inescapable, and I am creating the scenario and am an absolute authority. Now, where do you choose to drop it?

In this hypothetical scenario I am ontologically determined in such a way that makes my actions morally wrong no matter what. Because of this, this hypothetical scenario has absolutely no bearing on reality. Of course I would choose the hermit in such a situation, but I question whether the being that made this decision would actually resemble me in any measurable fashion.

But you are also personally responsible for saving 4.

You can't just subtract one person from another as if it means anything. We aren't dealing with bars of gold or grains of rice, we're dealing with human beings, who are a good deal more complicated and who are entitled to individual sovereignty, and part of that implies not treating them as objects and not treating them all as just means to an end.