Moral choice

[Ron Burgundy]

i would save my beloved person. easy choice for me.

[Socialhealer]

so far, 46 people don't actually have anyone they love :P

[Deleted]

You are in a scenario by accident.

However, your most loved person in the world (be it mate, family member or friend) is in danger. But so are 100 unknown people.

You can save your loved person... but the 100 die. On the other hand, you can save the 100 people, but your beloved dies.

You can't save both.

It is a race of time, so if you don't act in 5 minutes, everyone dies. And it's your fault, because you could have saved some of them. Yet you chose to help none by inaction, thus killing all.


Do you?
1. Saved beloved person.
2. Save the 100 people.
3. Don't do anything thus condemning all 101 people to die.

Any human with a functioning relationship and normal empathic ability will pick 1.), a more interesting option is if you actually have to kill the 100 people in question (since this means dirtying your hands). Personally I'd still go with that though.

[Deleted]

That would be a guilt based decision though wouldnt it, if "how long it takes for them to die" is a factor :P

They are going to die, does it matter other than to your own peace of mind if they suffered or not?

Yes it would matter if they suffered or not. I would calculate the speed of the train and whether the fatty was aware of his fate or not.

Though technically a fat person can't stop a train ...

[Deleted]

The trolly experiment is a simple conundrum? More like intentially difficult, designed to take moral theories and our capacities for moral reasoning to their extreme. :P

All these thought experiments really do is show that the usefulness of our intuitions that developed around everyday experiences begin to break down when met with once-in-a-blue-moon circumstances, which should hardly be suprising.

Bu simple i meant easy to understand and does not require any backgeound knowledge, though admittedly the more complex versions with multiple choices and variable effects can be a bit more difficult

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 11:42 PM ----------

Yes it would matter if they suffered or not. I would calculate the speed of the train and whether the fatty was aware of his fate or not.

Though technically a fat person can't stop a train ...

Even those really obese people you see in the tabloids? Hmm, i need some volunteers for an experiment.....

[Deleted]

I would save a beloved person 10/10 times. If 100 unknown people dies it wont affect me at all, but loosing a beloved one is one of the worst feeling. God this sound so selfish x(

See it like this: people who would save 100 people instead of their loved one also do it out of selfishness, because they do it in order to gain moral high ground and to feel pleased with themselves.

[Deleted]

It's not possible to make a single action (or well, no one will) that isn't selfish one way or another, e.g. donating money to the poor (even if no one knows about it) will make you feel pleased/less guilty. A very cynical way to view things, but being selfish is part of being human.

[Wikiy]

See it like this: people who would save 100 people instead of their loved one also do it out of selfishness, because they do it in order to gain moral high ground and to feel pleased with themselves.

Or maybe we just think 100 people are worth more to society than 1 person we love and taking that into the equation more than the personal perspective of what that 1 person means to us. Maybe it's just you trying to equate the 2 positions and justify yours by saying the other one is equally selfish.

[Frozen Death Knight]

I probably would sacrifice myself rather than choosing either of the options if it was possible. Also, the question is so vague that it is not even certain if those are the only options available.

Besides, I would have first analyzed the problem to be able to see if there is another way out of this, since I don't really believe in a no win scenario unless I have looked into the situation.

[Zhangfei]

A metaphysics of morals is therefore indispensably necessary, not merely because of a motive to speculation — for investigating the source of the practical basic principles that lie a priori in our reason — but also because morals themselves remain subject to all sorts of corruption as long as we are without that clue and supreme norm by which to appraise them correctly...
- Immanuel Kant

there cannot any one moral Rule be propos’d, whereof a Man may not justly demand a Reason
- John Locke

Seriously, have you READ any of the stuff written on moral philosophy? Philosophy IS logic; that is the root of the entire field.


All "logic" requires is that, given assumptions A and B, that conclusion C follows from the argument. If the conclusion follows from the premises via the argument, the argument is valid. It doesn't matter if you disagree with the premises.

Let's say we have two premises;

A> All dogs are lizards.
B> All lizards have spots.

Given these two premises, I can make this conclusion;
C> All dogs have spots.

That's a logical, valid argument. The issue with it is that it's not sound, because premise A is clearly false, and premise B says "All" when it should say "some". Either would be enough to determine the argument to be unsound. That doesn't mean it's not logically valid, though, or that the argument itself isn't logical.

So yes, every school of moral philosophy IS logical. You might disagree that some are sound, but you'd have to conclusively prove their fundamental premises to be false in way that everyone can agree with, to try and claim that as a fact rather than merely your personal preference.

You just argued my point. I said that morality (moral philosophy) is based on logic, you and Tlat said logic is based on morality.

Thanks.

But just go look at they trolly experiment. I really cant be arsed to put together a thesis for you right now, but even that simple exercise shows you that logic fails to explain morality when people are faced with even simple conundrums.

No, it's logic because it's based on the pleasure principal and prima facie duties. Quite explainable...

[vindicatorx]

Same thing I say every few weeks when this stupid moral choice comes up I save the 1 who matters to me.

[Endus]

You just argued my point. I said that morality (moral philosophy) is based on logic, you and Tlat said logic is based on morality.

I really didn't, if you go back and read my posts.

[Zhangfei]

I really didn't, if you go back and read my posts.

So what in bloody heck are we arguing here then, because your post supports my view that morality is based on logic.

[Sunseeker]

I would probably save the 100, because anyone I love that much, would want me to do so.

[Deepsidedj]

And the purpose of this thread is...............

[Socialhealer]

So far 212 people are selfish sociopaths.

it's ok maybe you'll find someone you really love one day :P

[Letmesleep]

You, and others, are arguing for Utilitarian-style moral philosophy; that the purpose of morals is to maximize "good" for as many people as possible.

It's not an incontrovertibly "correct" moral viewpoint, and it's been often criticized. For instance, imagine you're in a survival situation. 100 people are sick, and need a cure. The only cure that can be provided requires that you kill a healthy person to produce it. You can't teach anyone else how to administer the cure, so you can't use yourself. Everyone available is innocent of any wrongdoing, and refusing to volunteer. The Utilitarian response, here, would be to figure out a way to select who you're going to murder to create the cure. It's a moral attitude that's been the backing for plenty of villains in fiction, and used to justify GREAT atrocities.

That doesn't mean it's inherently evil. But it's not inherently good, either. It's a particular theory, and even most self-described Utilitarians start to balk at a certain point.

I would kill one to save 99 others. In such a black and white scenario where 100 people would die if I did nothing, getting my hands dirty with one is obviously the most rational choice because otherwise we have 100 corpses instead of 1. Would that bother me? Would I feel guilty? Of course, but the real world requires real choices. In fiction stories can always have happy endings tied with perfect bows and everyone gets to stick to their principles. Real life is much uglier, and sometimes the choices that need to be made are morally grey.

I suppose people could criticize that decision, but they would be wrong.

[Wikiy]

it's ok maybe you'll find someone you really love one day :P

The purpose of fender010's post was to show how ridiculous the extreme of your side would sound. And he/she did that exactly because that's what you did with the other side.

[Deleted]

So far 212 people are selfish sociopaths.

Actually it's a lot more in line with a sociopaths reasoning/behaviour to save the 100 people, sorry if that makes you upset.

I would probably save the 100, because anyone I love that much, would want me to do so.

It's great that you think so "well" about your loved ones, but I seriously doubt that. Would you want them to make that decision?

[Ethes]

Meh, leaving 100 unknown people to die might kill off that 1 shadow priest who was spawnkilling me today during my dailies.

Joking aside, saving the love of my life and leaving 100 unknown people out there would make me feel bad. Letting my beloved one die and knowing I could've done something about it would leave me heartbroken. Despite the fact I saved 100 people!