Moral choice

[Deleted]

This question is vague. If I could save both and end up myself being gone I would. Of course if I'm very happy and lived a good life which I have not yet.

It was simplistic, but it was very clear, do you save one person you care about and let 100 strangers die, or save 100 strangers and let someone you care about die, or do nothing?
Dont read more into the scenario than that, its a fairly basic and easy to understand query.

[Deleted]

So the 100 people are unknown? But can't that group of unknown people contain people you know and love, because you don't know who is in the group? Or are they simply 100 people you have never met before?

Also, can you see the 100 people? Because if I could see them I would save them, if I couldn't see them then I would be saving my loved one.

100 you've never met at any time in your life.

Yes, you can see them. And they can see you. And they know they are going to die and you can save them. You can't hear them though.

But you can also see your loved one. And he/she is crying... and you can her him/her.

[Deleted]

I think that's very accurate.

Just look what happens when things like big black outs happen (or likewise other incidents that reduce the possibility of getting cought). Pillaging immediately starts. If law enforcement would completely stop for some reason you can except a drastic rise in murders.

Not at all. if that were the case we'd have constant disorder everywhere, no police force in the world can actually enforce law and order without the consent of the citizens, think how few police there are in comparission to the number of people in the popultation. Police have authority by consent, because we as a society choose to give it to them, in terms of actual power, they have very little.

[Hiricine]

So deep down all of us want to kill people, but we choose not to because we might be investigated? I don't think that's accurate.

I didn't say all of us, I suppose many might indicate a majority, but maybe this is worth a poll! I'll make a new post!

[Deadvolcanoes]

I think that's very accurate.

Just look what happens when things like big black outs happen (or likewise other incidents that reduce the possibility of getting cought). Pillaging immediately starts. If law enforcement would completely stop for some reason you can except a drastic rise in murders.

No. The death penalty, and fear of punishment, is not a deterrence. Murder rates in death penalty states are higher than murder rates in non-death penalty states.

[Roose]

No thought involved. Would not even hesitate.

I hate most people, so the choice is really easy.

[Tokru]

Not at all. if that were the case we'd have constant disorder everywhere, no police force in the world can actually enforce law and order without the consent of the citizens, think how few police there are in comparission to the number of people in the popultation. Police have authority by consent, because we as a society choose to give it to them, in terms of actual power, they have very little.

But the little difference between a police that is barely able to enforce law and no police is actually quite big. The slightest chance of getting cought will keep nearly all people from doing bad stuff.
And people give their consent not because they don't want to murder but because they don't want to get murdered. The wish to be safe is greater than the wish to do what you want.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:54 PM ----------

No. The death penalty, and fear of punishment, is not a deterrence. Murder rates in death penalty states are higher than murder rates in non-death penalty states.

And what has death penalty to do with that? Murderers still get punished in other countries. And punishment itself will keep someone from doing something like that. The kind of punishment doesn't matter.

[Aeluron Lightsong]

It would be a difficult choice for me. I'm a very emotional person when it comes to those I care about. I'm not sure if I could truly have the burden of 100 lives on my mind.

[Deleted]

But the little difference between a police that is barely able to enforce law and no police is actually quite big. The slightest chance of getting cought will keep nearly all people from doing bad stuff.
And people give their consent not because they don't want to murder but because they don't want to get murdered. The wish to be safe is greater than the wish to do what you want.

Explain tribes who have existed peacefully for thousands of years that have no concept of a police force, yes there are still some out there.

It generally does not seam to come down to what the punishment is, or what the liklihood of beign caught is, but rather the prevaling social situation of the society.

[Tokru]

Explain tribes who have existed peacefully for thousands of years that have no concept of a police force, yes there are still some out there.

Close social relationships between them.

[Itisamuh]

Most people would choose their loved ones over any number of strangers if it came down to it, regardless of their importance.

[Deleted]

Close social relationships between them.

so you are saying that the impact of social connections and structure and normality of the society, and perhaps the desire to conform with preceived prevalent behavioural standards does in fact outweight what you earlier claimed was an overwhelming desire of people to do harm to others.....

[Atrea]

What I want to know is, who are the (at present) 4 people who chose "save the 100"?

They clearly do not know the meaning of love, and that's sad.

[Endus]

But you do have the choice, you know that both groups will die, so by going to save one group, you're killing the others indirectly.

This is false. Agency and intent is absolutely critical in determining morality. If someone says "if you don't tell me what I want to know, I'm going to murder 1000 people", then you're morally free to tell them to fuck off. THEY are the one killing the 1000 people; you have no moral engagement in that act.

In this scenario, again, it's an accident. You aren't killing anyone. They're just going to die unless you act. You aren't "killing" the group you choose not to save. You may feel grief that you couldn't save them, but it's not your "fault".

You aren't choosing who to kill. You're choosing who to save. There's a huge difference between the two, morally speaking.


Some people may try and make this about whether you're selfish and save the loved one, or "morally right" and save the 100. This isn't an absolute, it just means these people are utilitarians, loosely speaking, when it comes to morality. It's not the only school of ethical philosophy to pick from. And you can make it sound silly, too; if all 100 of those others were Hitler clones, the Utilitarian answer is still "save the Hitlers", because the clones haven't created any Holocausts to be punished for.


This is why they came up with the "runaway train" thought experiment, where your loved one is tied to the tracks and about to be hit by a train. You can switch the train to the other tracks, but there's 100 people you don't know on that one. Here, you ARE choosing to kill the 100 to save your loved one, and it's a much thornier moral issue for most people. Here, if you do nothing, only your loved one dies. In the OP's, everyone dies. That changes the entire thing; in the OPs, I can choose someone to save who's going to die if I don't act. With the "runaway train", the ONLY reason those 100 would die is if you save your loved one.

[Tokru]

so you are saying that the impact of social connections and structure and normality of the society, and perhaps the desire to conform with preceived prevalent behavioural standards does in fact outweight what you earlier claimed was an overwhelming desire of people to do harm to others.....

I highlighted the important part. In modern societies the number of people who fall under that is so abyssmally small compared to the whole populace.
In your small tribes there is constant interaction and, very important, strong dependance upon each other to survive so that no artificial law enforcement is needed (because you will face retaliation regardless of the concept of law or a police when you do something your peers don't like)
In bigger societies there is no such pressure to behave because you can easily live on your own, move to the next city or something like that. Therefor laws were created.

[Deleted]

Thats a no brainer, i couldnt care less about people i dont know. Pretty dark, i know, but thats just how it is, so my loved one all the way.

[Hiricine]

So deep down all of us want to kill people, but we choose not to because we might be investigated? I don't think that's accurate.

Quoting you again, but in my now closed thread, over 50% of respondents said they'd kill multiple people if given the opportunity. To be fair, I threw in a bunch of other ideas not originally stated in the premise.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:35 PM ----------

But the little difference between a police that is barely able to enforce law and no police is actually quite big. The slightest chance of getting cought will keep nearly all people from doing bad stuff.
And people give their consent not because they don't want to murder but because they don't want to get murdered. The wish to be safe is greater than the wish to do what you want.

---------- Post added 2013-01-25 at 08:54 PM ----------



And what has death penalty to do with that? Murderers still get punished in other countries. And punishment itself will keep someone from doing something like that. The kind of punishment doesn't matter.

I disagree with both points. The way we punish people and the way we employ the death penalty probably has skewed this statistic. If our death penalty was public disembowelment and many more torturous punishments, I have a feeling that we'd see the Death penalty states on top.

[Skippy88]

#2 because I don't have a most beloved loved one.

[DEATHETERNAL]

I know that those I love are ready to die in the place of others. As such I must save the 100. If in the future, one I loved would rather 100 die instead, then that person is not worth saving anyway. As such I must save the 100.

[Deleted]

Humans die anyway, I'd save the one I care about, tho there was a time when I would have saved the 100, guess I got closer to the dark side.