View Poll Results: What would you do in this scenario?

Voters
337. You may not vote on this poll
  • Save beloved person.

    269 79.82%
  • Save the 100 unknown people.

    56 16.62%
  • Not do anything even though by inaction you're killing all.

    12 3.56%

Thread: Moral choice

Page 16 of 16 FirstFirst ...
6
14
15
16
  1. #301
    Fluffy Kitten Wikiy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2010
    Location
    Virgo Supercluster, Local Group, Milky Way, Orion Arm, Solar System, Earth, European Union, Croatia
    Posts
    5,159
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    I'm merly stating that the reason for doing 'good' things is self-satisfaction. I think that the reason we feel self-satisfaction for these things is natural, and is to encourage us into doing altruistic things.
    I agree that the natural mechanism of people feeling good after doing good things is there for evolutionary reasons, but I still don't think it's the only or prime reason in most cases of altrustic acts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    You can obviously consider this love, but for me that's not the same feeling as I get when I'm with my loved one.

    It's love, just not romantic love, and it doesn't feel the same for obvious reasons.

  2. #302
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    I'm merly stating that the reason for doing 'good' things is self-satisfaction. I think that the reason we feel self-satisfaction for these things is natural, and is to encourage us into doing altruistic things. You can obviously consider this love, but for me that's not the same feeling as I get when I'm with my loved one.
    It's not JUST self-satisfaction, that's a pleasant by-product.

    To an extent, but no one is unaffected. May I ask what your reason is for trying to convince me that peoples decision-making isn't influenced by their emotions is? Even if humans could be trained to compensate for every emotion (hardly realistic to me) this would still not be the case for anything but a selected few individuals.
    Because every thought process can work like that. Morality takes work just like any other intellectual exercise.

    Giving away all your clothes/food is going to an extreme, but making sure that everyone has what they need isn't. Do you really don't think that selling your third pair of shoes and buying food for the poor wouldn't "actually be doing any good"? Where do you draw the line? Every action has a reaction (poor Newton, this is not what he had in mind when he came up with that quote).
    And I teach and encourage people to help? I'm doing my part. I think I own three pairs of shoes - ones for working out, two for work lol.

    Every action has a reaction but it's not necessarily moral.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  3. #303
    I agree that the natural mechanism of people feeling good after doing good things is there for evolutionary reasons, but I still don't think it's the only or prime reason in most cases of altrustic acts.
    It's not JUST self-satisfaction, that's a pleasant by-product.
    Maybe, maybe not. I'm hard pressed finding a scenario that proves otherwise, even if I obviously tell myself that I'm doing it because I'm such a great guy!

    It's love, just not romantic love, and it doesn't feel the same for obvious reasons.
    If you call it love or not is irrelevant, the point is that it isn't the same feeling.

    Because every thought process can work like that. Morality takes work just like any other intellectual exercise.
    Still missing your point I'm afraid.

    And I teach and encourage people to help? I'm doing my part. I think I own three pairs of shoes - ones for working out, two for work lol.
    So how much do you need to help to 'do your part', is it measured in time? Money? Effort? As long as you feel satisfied you don't need to do more 'good things'? That's scarily similar to my earlier statement, that people do good things for their own satisfaction. I own 6:P.

    Every action has a reaction but it's not necessarily moral.
    Arguable, that every action/lack of action is negative for someone is a fact. You can put a moral aspect to everything, we'd end up with everyone being terrible persons though.

  4. #304
    Scarab Lord Zhangfei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Location
    Cola, SC via Devon
    Posts
    4,357
    Quote Originally Posted by Cookie View Post
    Maybe, maybe not. I'm hard pressed finding a scenario that proves otherwise, even if I obviously tell myself that I'm doing it because I'm such a great guy!
    Sigh. The point is actions have multiple reasons that they're done. Just because doing good makes you feel good doesn't ALSO mean you're doing it because you want someone else to feel good, for example. Maybe you're a socialist so it makes you happy to support national healthcare so you go on a march while simultaneously enjoying it.

    If you call it love or not is irrelevant, the point is that it isn't the same feeling.
    It's a variation on love which is, to quote a bad song, "more than a feeling."

    Still missing your point I'm afraid.
    There are good moral thought patterns and bad ones. You can get better at it, just like any other intellectual pursuit. People aren't born with all morals pre-installed.

    So how much do you need to help to 'do your part', is it measured in time? Money? Effort? As long as you feel satisfied you don't need to do more 'good things'? That's scarily similar to my earlier statement, that people do good things for their own satisfaction. I own 6:P.
    Depends on your moral, social, political and philosophical code, not your feelings. For example, I do more than my fair share because I feel a morally sufficient person does so.

    Arguable, that every action/lack of action is negative for someone is a fact. You can put a moral aspect to everything, we'd end up with everyone being terrible persons though.
    You could but it'd be a stretch. Life isn't economics with an "either/or" element.
    In fact as far as I'm aware the UK is the only european nation that outright bans guns for civilians.
    Shotguns I'll give you (provided you're allowed 12 and larger gauges... because I mean... come on...) but not .22s.
    This is why people ban guns. Gun supporters don't know what guns are.

  5. #305
    Sigh. The point is actions have multiple reasons that they're done. Just because doing good makes you feel good doesn't ALSO mean you're doing it because you want someone else to feel good, for example. Maybe you're a socialist so it makes you happy to support national healthcare so you go on a march while simultaneously enjoying it.
    Yes, and I don't think a person will make an action if the negative consequences, for him, outweights the positive ones (both actual benefits, e.g. money or fun, and satisfaction of doing something good).

    It's a variation on love which is, to quote a bad song, "more than a feeling."
    Are you actually trying to argue that love isn't a feeling/emotion? Do you actually believe that every 'variation on love' is equally strong?

    There are good moral thought patterns and bad ones. You can get better at it, just like any other intellectual pursuit. People aren't born with all morals pre-installed.
    Obviously we aren't, not really sure how that's relevant.

    Depends on your moral, social, political and philosophical code, not your feelings. For example, I do more than my fair share because I feel a morally sufficient person does so.
    and you yourself decide what your fair share is? This seems damn convenient.

    You could but it'd be a stretch. Life isn't economics with an "either/or" element.
    Everything is, that you don't want to see that is a different matter.

  6. #306
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,846
    Quote Originally Posted by Zhangfei View Post
    People make decisions based on agape love daily, like Mother Theresa.
    I find it difficult to accept that what that woman did was out of love. She promoted and encouraged suffering among thousands, out of a belief that suffering was necessary and good for the world. Among other moderately heinous acts. She would routinely have people denied pain medication while under her care, solely because she felt their suffering to be righteous and good.

    Those aren't the acts of someone acting out of love. At least, not love for other people.


    Which, in a roundabout sense, makes this a great example of what I was saying earlier; that morality is a widely varied thing, and based upon personal conceptualizations that others may not accept as valid.

  7. #307
    I would be selfish and save my beloved.

  8. #308
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by IfOnly View Post
    Why not step in front of the train yourself?

    I wouldn't but you know some possibly maybe would?


    Why not just answer the scenario instead of trying to find a get out clause to avoid making an actual choice.....for gods sake they are just scenarios, dont over think them, dont try to get out of them, just make a sodding choice......
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  9. #309
    The Patient Mehbooba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Middle Earth
    Posts
    311
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I find it difficult to accept that what that woman did was out of love. She promoted and encouraged suffering among thousands, out of a belief that suffering was necessary and good for the world. Among other moderately heinous acts. She would routinely have people denied pain medication while under her care, solely because she felt their suffering to be righteous and good.

    Those aren't the acts of someone acting out of love. At least, not love for other people.


    Which, in a roundabout sense, makes this a great example of what I was saying earlier; that morality is a widely varied thing, and based upon personal conceptualizations that others may not accept as valid.
    Denying patients pain relief is not acceptable but suffering hardship and going without certain things in life surely makes one appreciate these things more when you have them. It might invoke modesty, humbleness and empathy for fellow humans as a result?
    Funny Bunny

  10. #310
    Fluffy Kitten Cambria's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Rapture
    Posts
    9,381
    I'd want to save the one, but I'd save the 100. Not out of morality, but the fact that he'd never forgive me if I let 100 people die for him, nor would I forgive him in the opposite situation.

  11. #311
    Unfortunately, regardless of what people say they would almost always go for the person they care about.

  12. #312
    Legendary! Asmekiel's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Maybe over there
    Posts
    6,388
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    Actually there is no difference. In both situations you are taking action either by pushing someone, or diverting the train, to kill one person over 5.

    The other analogy is 5 people needing differnt transplant organs to live, and one patient being compatible with all 5....do you kill the one to save the 5?

    Most people answer no, but when you get right down to it, its no differnt from diverting the train....no one has yet been able to actually work out why people have differnt reactions to what is essentially the same problem in 3 different forms.
    So in one situation there are 5 people on the track and 1 beside it and the other situation there are 6 people on the track, separated in a group of 5 and an individual.
    Sure as hell there is a difference. In the first situation you actively have to push someone on the tracks, who otherwise wouldn't have been hurt in any way. In the second situation you simply limit the amount of unavoidable deaths. In the first situation the death of the bystander is avoidable if you don't push him, this is the key difference between the situations.

  13. #313
    Bloodsail Admiral
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    1,186
    Quote Originally Posted by Asmekiel View Post
    So in one situation there are 5 people on the track and 1 beside it and the other situation there are 6 people on the track, separated in a group of 5 and an individual.
    Sure as hell there is a difference. In the first situation you actively have to push someone on the tracks, who otherwise wouldn't have been hurt in any way. In the second situation you simply limit the amount of unavoidable deaths. In the first situation the death of the bystander is avoidable if you don't push him, this is the key difference between the situations.
    There is no difference.

    In one situation there are 5 in danger, and you take action (pulling a lever) to put 1 person in danger, who was not already in danger, to save the 5.

    In the second situation there are 5 in danger, and you take action (pushing someone onto the track) to put 1 person in danger, who was not already in danger, to save the 5.

    You say in teh first situation that you are merely limiting deaths, but so are you in the second, the person on the otehr tracks is 100% safe unless you take action to kill them and save the 5, thats exactly the same as pushing an innocent onto the tracks.....

    Its the same outcome, 1 innocent who was not in danger gets sacrificed to save the 5 who are in danger. Logically they are indentical, but as you are pointing out, people see a moral difference, which is why its a fallacy to say morality is based on logic, its not.
    No game will ever kill wow. Though Blizard themselves are making a pretty damm good attempt lately.

    THE FIRST RULE OF BRAWLERS GUILD IS YOU DO NOT GET INVITED TO BRAWLERS GUILD.

  14. #314
    Moderator Endus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Waterloo, ON
    Posts
    20,846
    Quote Originally Posted by tlacoatl View Post
    There is no difference.

    In one situation there are 5 in danger, and you take action (pulling a lever) to put 1 person in danger, who was not already in danger, to save the 5.

    In the second situation there are 5 in danger, and you take action (pushing someone onto the track) to put 1 person in danger, who was not already in danger, to save the 5.

    You say in teh first situation that you are merely limiting deaths, but so are you in the second, the person on the otehr tracks is 100% safe unless you take action to kill them and save the 5, thats exactly the same as pushing an innocent onto the tracks.....

    Its the same outcome, 1 innocent who was not in danger gets sacrificed to save the 5 who are in danger. Logically they are indentical, but as you are pointing out, people see a moral difference, which is why its a fallacy to say morality is based on logic, its not.
    You're ignoring a clear difference.

    In Scenario 1, if you do nothing, 6 people die. You can save either 1 you care about, or 5 you don't.
    In Scenario 2, if you do nothing, 5 people die. You can only save them by deliberately killing an innocent, someone who was not under any risk prior to your choice.

    The two situations are apples and oranges. It's the same difference between rationing medicine to patients with the best chance of recovery, which is basic triage, and deliberately infecting people against their will because the research will generate a cure that will save hundreds or thousands more, making the murder acceptable.

    The two situations are only the same if you consider murder for the greater good a morally acceptable behaviour.
    Last edited by Endus; 2013-01-27 at 09:11 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •