Moral choice

[Endus]

So with the definition in mind, I would choose strangers over my loved one as it's a selfless act and part of being human.

Nothing about that makes it "right". You're leaning towards Utilitarianism, which is fine, it's a well-respected school of moral philosophy, but it's not a perfect one.

Nor is someone making a different choice than you would necessarily morally "wrong" in any objective sense. The reality is, this is a horrible situation. There are no "good" choices. You're deciding which is "least bad".

[Deleted]

Then you progress to argue my exact point. Every human has their own moral system. The presence of morality is objective, the details are not. And Nietzsche is useless philosophy argued for by sophomore philosophy students, don't particularly see his use in more intelligent debate except for his outlandish, syphilis-ridden statements designed to wind up late 19th century society.

I belive you're the one arguing my point by repeating what i wrote?.... Anyway, i agree that nihilism isn't much to hang in the christmas tree but i consider moral/ethical nihilism to be damn spot on accurate.


@Celltrex - Pretending to be ignorant about a social norm for the reason you disagree with it is juvenile and makes you look like a complete mouth breeding retard. You know perfectly well why women and children are and has been the ones to be rescued first. That you also disagrees with it makes me wonder if you even have the capabilities of basic human emotion or if you're nothing but hard thought and cold logic.

[Zhangfei]

If this discussion has done one thing very well, it has shown that lives are not of equal worth (my beloved has more worth than 100 strangers, etc, etc). Considering worth to be subjective and different from individual to individual, the only way you can say both lives are of equal worth is to assume 1. God gives them equal worth, or 2. because you say they share the same value based off of the knowledge you have of them.

My argument has been that the child holds more worth to me (the one making the decision) than the 40 yr old. If we know nothing personal about the two, we do know that time is our greatest asset, the child has more time to live, therefore, the child holds more worth to me than the adult. Now, if the adult is my beloved, no question I save my beloved, again, illustrating the subjectivity of this discussion.

No, this discussion has categorically not shown that lives are not of equal worth. It has shown people are often selfish and think their lives are more important than others, or in times of horrific decision making you might arbitrarily use some category to forcibly choose - prima facie duties for example.

It's like seeing a child make a basic mathematical mistake and concluding that mathematics is all arbitrary.

[Kurioxan]

^ it is hard to define what is right however.

Morality is individual, you have society moral and personal morals.
Again, with what face can you tell someone you love that you love them, when so easily you would choose 100 strangers over them?
Not to mention that it is very easy to say that, but being in such situation would be very different.

To me friends and loved ones (i left family out because we dont chose family, we have it, so some of them or all could count as loved ones) come first, its that simple.
Maybe its my Mediterranean culture upbringing, but i would go with my friends and loved ones.

Not to mention in the area of morality you have a moral obligation towards your loved ones from the bonds of trust, the relationship, history, many times financial and emotional, you have no such obligations towards strangers.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 08:49 PM ----------

It's like seeing a child make a basic mathematical mistake and concluding that mathematics is all arbitrary.

Only if you assume you are correct and others are wrong...
Morality is subjective, and as such there is no correct answer :S

And no, it is by knowing that you cant put a value to life that you cant say that 100 are worth more than 1, they are worth the same, so it is up to you, the person who has the choice, to decide who has more worth to you.

And if you can live with the decision or not

[Zhangfei]

Only if you assume you are correct and others are wrong...
Morality is subjective, and as such there is no correct answer :S

Says who? Once again, and I shall reiterate this damn point, that a people's opinions are inherently subjective but what makes morality inherently subjective? That stance is an objective position, making it self-defeating.

People can be wrong, you know.

And no, it is by knowing that you cant put a value to life that you cant say that 100 are worth more than 1, they are worth the same, so it is up to you, the person who has the choice, to decide who has more worth to you.

And that can be wrong. Which is my point. You can have bad logic and reason for making decisions. If you logically concluded that those 100 people were mass murderers so saving the 1 was a perfect decision, you'd be making a moral decision based on bad logic and reason.

You may get different conclusions in moral works, but they all have a basis in reason.

[Eorayn]

100 lives are worth more than one. Now isn’t the time to be selfish.

[Kurioxan]

Says who? Once again, and I shall reiterate this damn point, that a people's opinions are inherently subjective but what makes morality inherently subjective? That stance is an objective position, making it self-defeating.

People can be wrong, you know.



And that can be wrong. Which is my point. You can have bad logic and reason for making decisions. If you logically concluded that those 100 people were mass murderers so saving the 1 was a perfect decision, you'd be making a moral decision based on bad logic and reason.

You may get different conclusions in moral works, but they all have a basis in reason.

Morality is inherently subjective since morality is based on opinions O_o
There is no superior source of morality, it changes according to culture and time, it is absolutely subjective.
Also behavior dictates morality, NOT the reverse, this has been shown over and over again and a very classic example is people and drugs.

"omg drugs are bad" - never did anything
"haaa, they are ok then, hey try this one" - just experimented and had a change of heart, now instead of opposing is in favor.

Not the best example but im cooking sorry :P

I have bad logic? perhaps, i admit being able to be wrong, but you cant read at all.
No where i said that i assume the 100 are mass murdered, they could be doctors, wouldnt change a thing, the value of the 1 is the same as the value of the 100, so it comes down to who you prefer to save, again, subjective.
But then you have moral obligations towards loved ones, depending on your culture, if i saw you hurting in a street i would stop and try my best to help you, if i had to kill my girlfriend or a friend in order to save you? i would call 911 and get out, were you the president of the united states or were you the pope, couldnt care less.

[Spoiler]

Morality is inherently subjective since morality is based on opinions O_o
There is no superior source of morality, it changes according to culture and time, it is absolutely subjective.
Also behavior dictates morality, NOT the reverse, this has been shown over and over again and a very classic example is people and drugs.

But Zhangfei makes a good point. To say "Morality is inherently subjective since morality is based on opinion" is true, is a self-defeating statement, considering by your own argument we cannot know what to be true.

[Zhangfei]

Morality is inherently subjective since morality is based on opinions O_o

No it isn't. This is where you are clearly wrong. Morality is based on logic though poor thinkers will base it on opinions.

I have bad logic? perhaps, i admit being able to be wrong, but you cant read at all.

Of course that's true - but this isn't a sophisticated argument about medical ethics. Thought experiments are designed to be simple to show the flaws of thinking or to determine why people decide what they do. This one if a rule utility vs act utility argument, based on John Stuart Mill's concept of the prima facie duty (duty to loved ones above the greater good within rule utility.)

No where i said that i assume the 100 are mass murdered, they could be doctors, wouldnt change a thing, the value of the 1 is the same as the value of the 100, so it comes down to who you prefer to save, again, subjective.

People think differently. It doesn't make their choices:
A) Inherently equal
B) Inherently valid
C) Inherently justified.

Which is my point. Opinion is always subjective. Sound moral thinking is not. Humans are objectively the same in intrinsic value when you don't know anything about them. It's when you apply arbitrary qualities that you skew the thinking.

[Deleted]

Hey! The point is morality as stated in the title....it's a moral choice

mor·al
/ˈmôrəl/
Adjective
Concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character.
Noun
A lesson, esp. one concerning what is right or prudent, that can be derived from a story, a piece of information, or an experience.
Synonyms
adjective. ethical - ethic - virtuous
noun. morality - morals - ethics - morale - lesson


So with the definition in mind, I would choose strangers over my loved one as it's a selfless act and part of being human.

You fail to understand the arguements either way,

All that means is that you are a utilitarian. Its perfectly valid to be of a different philosophy when it comes to moral choices.


Answer this:
If 100 people are on a train track and will die if the train does not stop. There is no way of freeing the people, there is no way of alerting the driver. the deaths of the 100 people is certain and there is no way of avoiding it....then you spot a fat man on a bridge infront of you. He's so fat that he would stop the train if he were to be pushed onto the track ahead of the train. For the purposed of this scenario, the fat person represents the person you care about most as per the originally proposed question. Do you:
A) push the person you care about most in front of the train
B) let the 100 people die

There is no option to do nothing as doing nothing = option B.

---------- Post added 2013-01-26 at 09:08 PM ----------

No it isn't. This is where you are clearly wrong. Morality is based on logic though poor thinkers will base it on opinions.

.

No you are wrong. One type of morality, utilitarianism, is based on logic. Do not assume that this is the only valid choice.

[Zhangfei]

No you are wrong. One type of morality, utilitarianism, is based on logic. Do not assume that this is the only valid choice.

Both rule and act utility are, situation ethics are, virtue ethics are, religious ethics are (though people often disagree with the premise of course,) and my favoured Kantian ethics does.

I'm sure there are other moral systems I'm forgetting but I've not encountered one based on illogical grounds or progresses illogically.

[Kurioxan]

No it isn't. This is where you are clearly wrong. Morality is based on logic though poor thinkers will base it on opinions.

Morality isnt based on logic, it never was...
There are current ways of thought that chose a pure logical (logic is not flawless either, can get real subjective) which is called an utilitarian stance, but it is by no means the only, or superior form of morality.

I do understand latin although thanks for the explanation, some might not, to me, yes, duty to loved ones is above all else as simple as that, which i pointed out might be due to my Mediterranean culture upbringing.
If you are born in a greater good type of society then you are expected to sacrifice your own well being for the "majority" so it is logic to you to save the 100 people, but in those cases i can honestly say im sorry for whoever those people end up marrying/be friends with.

again, you assume moral thinking has to be logic... we are going in circles

But Zhangfei makes a good point. To say "Morality is inherently subjective since morality is based on opinion" is true, is a self-defeating statement, considering by your own argument we cannot know what to be true.

There is no "truth", no option is "truest" nor "best"


Edit: from your recent post i see where you are coming from, understand but still dont agree.
What is logic to you might not be to me

[Grym]

Save the one I love.

100 strangers means nothing to me.

I don't even need 5min, I can make that decision in 5 seconds.

[Zhangfei]

Morality isnt based on logic, it never was...

Oh please. Since the first recordings of morality there has been a reasonable argument. Our ancestors would no more like an argument that "killing people is bad because Fat John doesn't like it" than we would.

All modern morality systems are based on logic. You're now confusing an individual's opinion with the study and learning of morality.

There are current ways of thought that chose a pure logical (logic is not flawless either, can get real subjective) which is called an utilitarian stance, but it is by no means the only, or superior form of morality.

That is no more "pure logic" than any other system. Seriously, do you think Kant designed an ethical system based on colour or his favourite type of cheese? Fletcher freeballed it?

I do understand latin although thanks for the explanation, some might not, to me, yes, duty to loved ones is above all else as simple as that, which i pointed out might be due to my Mediterranean culture upbringing.

And is explained in rule utility by Mill as an example of the pleasure principle. I get it. It's logical in its own way.

If you are born in a greater good type of society then you are expected to sacrifice your own well being for the "majority", but in those cases i can honestly say im sorry for whoever those people end up marrying/be friends with.

I agree with you here. I'm not a utilitarian.

again, you assume moral thinking has to be logic... we are going in circles

I do. Otherwise it's just opinion.

There is no "truth", no option is "truest" nor "best"

Then that statement is "not true" and we can ignore it, making truth possible again! Wayhey subjectivity!

[Viscoe]

A faceless 100 people or my beloved?

The selfless person in me says the faceless 100 people. Who am I to decide their fates?

The selfish person in me says my beloved, because more than faceless 100 people die every god damn day anyway and if I can stop it from being me or someone I love, then I will.

I choose... to disarm the bomb so no one dies! But seriously no if I were in this situation for real, my loved one would shoot himself so I wouldn't have the choice. >.> (I choose to remove his gun. 1.)

Besides, can you imagine the cute talk afterwards? "I love you more than anything!" "No, I love YOU more than anything!" "Well I love you more than 100 random strangers!"

[Deleted]

Number Uno.
This poll lacks the choice to sacrifice your own life to save some.

[Grym]

There are 2 factors that generally lead to my answer:

1) People hold different view on values. What is very valuable to you might be trash to me, if all of your relatives are in the cart with 100 people, my loved one is in the other, the cart with my loved one inside holds more value TO ME compare to the cart with 100 people. Sine I am the one who can make the choice there, I choose what I value more. When I hold the power to make the decision, my rule, don't like it? Tough shit.

2) Duty of care. I would feel that I owe a duty of care to protect my loved one, I do not owe a duty of care to 100 people that I never met, or plan to know, they are merely an existence that most likely never cross path with me, so whether they live or die doesn't actually concern me much. To further this particular point, even if there is only 1 cart - the one with 100 stranger in it (my loved one didn't get in a cart in the end), depends on the effort and risk required to save that 100 people, I might very well just sit back and watch if the effort is too much or if there is any sort of risk to myself.

[The Casualty]

Save the one I love.

100 strangers means nothing to me.

I don't even need 5min, I can make that decision in 5 seconds.

Agreed. I remember the day my son was born and I looked at him and held him in the delivery room and thought to myself that there is absolutely nothing in this world I wouldn't do for him. I would save my wife as well, but I have never felt so strongly about it as right then and there.

[Kurioxan]

All modern morality systems are based on logic. You're now confusing an individual's opinion with the study and learning of morality.

Logic... logic restricted by what was known, yet a pure logic morality would allow quite a lot of things that are considered amoral today, plenty of old morality would be considered horrendous by today.

Also... as i said i see where you are coming from but cant agree, assuming people give a crap about moral systems created by people they never heard of, you can try to dissect morality as much as you want, it is up to each person and purely subjective.
What you have is also the rule of law, by enforcing certain laws they then become morals as people tend to follow what is dictated by legislation and see it as "right" as oposed to "wrong" (illegal) and thus their morality becomes so, as i said morality is defined by behavior, only in group decision settings does morality supersede individual opinion.

Unless ofc you are a highly moralist person who lives to a certain standard, but then what you consider moral others might not and it is still based on your notion that you have to follow such rule, which then becomes subjective.

And crap i think i burnt some food already -.-!
(making a curry, takes a couple of hours for this type)

[Coombs]

It could be 1 billion people for all I care. I'm saving my wife. Without even thinking.

I want to see you answer this post again every year to see how that goes.