Do you believe that the world is so large you have 0% to do with people in Afghanistan dying? People in Lybia? People in Iraq?
We all vote. We all buy products, oil, and more. I know I do.
The death of 10,000+ people I've never even met, seen, or have done "nothing" to me, should upset me more than just 1. Especially if the people doing the killing claim they are fighting for my sake, and in my name, or for the sake of my freedom, kill thousands with the efficiency and annonymity of large BOMBS and automatic weapons.
Ya well
to me one death is one death, and a million is just a million. Neither carry the burden of empathy. In a massive ant colony of 7 billion...it hardly makes a difference if one ant gets smashed by a shoe, or a million get washed away in a tsunami. But if you are going to value either, wouldn't you value the million?
If one person had to die to cure cancer vs. the millions that will die as we wait patiently and fail miserably to find one, I'd kill one person.
Wouldn't it have been nice if we could have killed ONE person to stop Hitler?
But no, in the real world we had to kill thousands upon thousands...
Why am I the one with bad reasoning?
So by choosing the lesser of two evils and killing an innocent man, you still commit evil and give into another malevolent force.
Let's take your Hitler argument, what if malevolent force A enables you to kill Hitler, then what? You saved the Jews, gypsies, and friends. However, in the cascade of events we do not have specific people born necessary at specific events to provide things such as a cure for other diseases.
We simply do not know everything, especially if that man in particular may already have the cure for cancer and may have other cures in their life time ahead.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Millions have died for freedom
Millions have died for democracy
Millions have died for erroneous beliefs in god(s)
Thousands die every year because some company wanted to make 2.1% more profits.
Thousands die every year just because someone else wanted what they had.
If (according to you) it is wrong to kill someone for the cure to cancer...isn't also wrong to kill someone for freedom? Democracy?
I guess we shouldn't have killed any nazi's then right?
Where's the line? What IS worth someone's life?
We waged a war that costed over a million lives, in order to preserve our Union, and *free slaves (*sorta - I mean, it was part of the reason)
We waged a war that costed nearly 400,000 lives so that a tyrant wouldn't conquer europe and *murder an entire race of people (*that was just part of it too), oh, and because Japan attacked us
The total dead in WW2 is something like 70 million. The Tyrant indirectly or directly caused the deaths of nearly 50 million so that his nation of superior race could rule europe, or something along those lines.
Again, to promote democracy we got involved in a war that claimed another 170,000 lives. For what? To help protect the establishment of a form of government? Okay.
"Murder for hire"
Hah...
Every single soldier, foreign or domestic, who has shot an enemy was a hired gun. Every cop, every FBI agent who has pulled the trigger. Every pilot who has dropped a bomb. Every admiral who has launched a missile. All hired guns, hired to uphold someone else's authority. Hired to enforce someone else's rules. They got paid didn't they? They take care of their family with the money they made killing someone else, right? Sometimes for reasons not even remotely as righteous as you think.
So I kill ONE person, in order to wish the whole world into a better form of existence, or to gain an amount of money that when properly used could improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of less fortunate.
and I'm a MURDERER! MURDERER!
Seriously.
Wake up.
People die against their will everyday, every 5 minutes of every day. For what? $20 in a register, a car, a drug deal, adultery, anger, hate, racism, rebellion, tribal disputes, territory, wrong place wrong time...
You name it and someone has died for it. Many many many times, for NO reason at all. Against their will, and sometimes so violent and absurd is the method in which they were killed that they would not show the pictures on television.
This world is incredibly ****ed up. But whats even more ****ed up, is that IN such a world...someone like you can look at one hypothetical death in disgust, while ignoring the cemetary being built around them.
Um, just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it "HAS" to happen, with the exception of things going wrong of course.
Millions have died for freedom
Millions have died for democracy
Millions have died for erroneous beliefs in god(s)
Thousands die every year because some company wanted to make 2.1% more profits.
Thousands die every year just because someone else wanted what they had.
If (according to you) it is wrong to kill someone for the cure to cancer...isn't also wrong to kill someone for freedom? Democracy?
I guess we shouldn't have killed any nazi's then right?
Where's the line? What IS worth someone's life?
In a time of war, people must take sides and fight for who they believe is (most) right. And oftentimes, people are put into a situation they don't want to be in, like German citizens in the Nazi army. But we had no choice; we had to stand against them to protect ourselves, and unfortunately that meant that we had to go through the soldiers pointing the guns at our faces.
The man we're killing in the hypothetical has not drawn arms against people; he is not a source nor a cause of cancer. He is an innocent bystander (that nobody will miss him is an irrelevant point that aims to ignore the fact that he has rights independent of others' knowledge of his existence) and if we want to try and move away from the many tragedies of war it would be in our best interest not to kill him.
We waged a war that costed over a million lives, in order to preserve our Union, and *free slaves (*sorta - I mean, it was part of the reason)
Two sides stood against one another; a decision was made by both.
We waged a war that costed nearly 400,000 lives so that a tyrant wouldn't conquer europe and *murder an entire race of people (*that was just part of it too), oh, and because Japan attacked us
The total dead in WW2 is something like 70 million. The Tyrant indirectly or directly caused the deaths of nearly 50 million so that his nation of superior race could rule europe, or something along those lines.
Your sarcasm tells me that you have no understanding of the decisions people made in the process that built up to the US entering WWII.
"Murder for hire"
Hah...
Every single soldier, foreign or domestic, who has shot an enemy was a hired gun. Every cop, every FBI agent who has pulled the trigger. Every pilot who has dropped a bomb. Every admiral who has launched a missile. All hired guns, hired to uphold someone else's authority. Hired to enforce someone else's rules. They got paid didn't they? They take care of their family with the money they made killing someone else, right? Sometimes for reasons not even remotely as righteous as you think.
So I kill ONE person, in order to wish the whole world into a better form of existence, or to gain an amount of money that when properly used could improve the lives of hundreds of thousands of less fortunate.
and I'm a MURDERER! MURDERER!
Seriously.
Wake up.
People die against their will everyday, every 5 minutes of every day. For what? $20 in a register, a car, a drug deal, adultery, anger, hate, racism, rebellion, tribal disputes, territory, wrong place wrong time...
You name it and someone has died for it. Many many many times, for NO reason at all. Against their will, and sometimes so violent and absurd is the method in which they were killed that they would not show the pictures on television.
This world is incredibly ****ed up. But whats even more ****ed up, is that IN such a world...someone like you can look at one hypothetical death in disgust, while ignoring the cemetary being built around them.
You're trying to diminish the immorality of your action by holding it to things other people have chosen to do. This is called tu quoque.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
To everyone who says they would kill someone because it would result in them curing cancer or infinite world peace...
Would you die if those things were guaranteed? Or is it just a one way street; you're willing to kill someone for those things, but not yourself.
Yes. 100% absolutely.
In fact, I think I said this before, but if the hypothetical genie would take MY life and still grant the wish, I'd choose that option entirely over killing anyone else.
If my death would grant a cure for cancer, or 100billion dollars that would be put to an overwhelmingly altruistic use...sure, I'd die for that. Better than dying of cancer, or old age peeing on myself. Better than dying a wrinkled old fart on an oxygen tank.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
So by choosing the lesser of two evils and killing an innocent man, you still commit evil and give into another malevolent force.
You believe in Evil? I don't. So what malevolent force? Isn't it just me? I believe I am solely responsible for my actions, not evil or malevolent forces.
I believe that there are good reasons and bad reasons. Killing isn't evil if its done for good reason, and even the "bad guys" often claim they have one.
You must be one of the "objective morality" people.
However, there is always another perspective. Not one person I have ever seen or heard of has the ultimate moral truth on their side, and since we are not omniscient, all these "well we don't know all the details or the future" arguments are absurd.
In the end, we decide for ourselves if the actions we took were good or bad. Maybe you believe there is a heaven or hell, or a God to judge, more power to ya buddy. I don't.
Let's take your Hitler argument, what if malevolent force A enables you to kill Hitler, then what? You saved the Jews, gypsies, and friends. However, in the cascade of events we do not have specific people born necessary at specific events to provide things such as a cure for other diseases.
We simply do not know everything, especially if that man in particular may already have the cure for cancer and may have other cures in their life time ahead.
So we shouldn't kill some horribly bad people...because you know, it's just possible we might upset the future and lose the cure for cancer, or sickle cell anemia? wait that needs two
This thought process would end the world miserably.
Should we not hang this serial rapist? After all, he is smart, he might develop the next alternative fuel!
Not knowing the future, and not being omniscient, are arguments TO ACT, not to abstain from action.
I never said I was time traveling and killing his mom before he is born. I was simply talking about killing the guy based on what he did do.
What I said was "Wouldn't it have been nice if we could have killed ONE person to stop Hitler?"
- That ONE person, being Hitler.
But even if we did kill him, I doubt the armies of Germany would have suddenly surrendered. We would likely still need to kill thousands in order to obtain victory. That was my point.
What is this malevolent force you speak of? As far as I know, people do things. PEOPLE. Not malevolent forces.
People war, kill, rape, pillage, cure, treat, save, love, hate...
One problem with a "deal with the devil" to achieve some "net good" is that you are "playing ball" with the devil.
You believe in the devil?
Your sarcasm tells me that you have no understanding of the decisions people made in the process that built up to the US entering WWII.
I know a lot more about why these wars were fought then you might think. I'm being sarcastic because the reasons that are written on war posters, or promoted on television through propaganda are often the thinnest of veils over the truth. That these wars had more to do with economic power, voting rights, government policy, or commodities, then they did with "freeing slaves" or "Japan attacked us".
Why did Japan attack us??
Is it because they were bad people who bombed Pearl Harbor for no good reason??
Or is it because after they invaded China, we stuck our nose in that business, and then created naval blockades and trade embargos upon Japan which crushed their economy and drove them into recession, until they had to act in their best interest and decided to fight us (which may or may not have been the best choice, but that is irrelevant).
I could go on about the western front too (Germany), but only if you need me to.
In a time of war, people must take sides and fight for who they believe is (most) right. And oftentimes, people are put into a situation they don't want to be in, like German citizens in the Nazi army. But we had no choice; we had to stand against them to protect ourselves, and unfortunately that meant that we had to go through the soldiers pointing the guns at our faces.
Emphasis mine. What they believe is right.
The only relevant piece of information, is that it is NOT "evil" to fight against something "bad" if it is what you believe to be right. Of course, from one perspective, you're right, and from another perspective, you're wrong.
Who decides which is true?
The man we're killing in the hypothetical has not drawn arms against people; he is not a source nor a cause of cancer. He is an innocent bystander (that nobody will miss him is an irrelevant point that aims to ignore the fact that he has rights independent of others' knowledge of his existence) and if we want to try and move away from the many tragedies of war it would be in our best interest not to kill him.
Innocent dissenters are killed all the time in war. People who have not drawn arms, or been the source of oppression, or the source of whatever "evil" we are fighting.
So the argument that this guy in the hypothetical is an innocent bystander is pretty solidly weak.
I mean, the bombs we drop on other countries in our "righteous" quest for freedom and democracy don't know the difference between innocent bystanders and combatants. Neither do Hamas IED's, neither do Israeli rockets, neither do NATO daisy cutters, or moabs, neither do u.s.air force missiles.
Even though the above is true, I'm not going to call it an "evil" act.
Its an act, done for a reason I agree with, and so I support what we are doing. I'm sure to the people that don't agree with it, it's "evil".
Perspective my friend.
Two sides stood against one another; a decision was made by both.
Yes. Yet still, innocent bystanders who were not part of such a decision making process died, and not just ONE, but many.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload, and have died by the truckload in every war anyone has ever fought. For good reasons or bad reasons.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload everyday around the world for no reason at all. For the most insignificant of motivations.
If 1 more innocent bystander dies, wouldn't it be nice at least for it to be for a good reason?
It sounds like a purely pragmatic argument you're making, but there is a problem with this (and it's sometimes hard for a young person to see the flaw in this approach to life).
Sure it is pretty pragmatic.
I am however, not young. I'm not just some ignorant teenager expressing his angst. I'm an adult, with a family of my own, and I've been over enough hot coals in my life to know what it feels like to get burned.
You're trying to diminish the immorality of your action by holding it to things other people have chosen to do. This is called tu quoque.
That is only assuming I am trying to diminishing the immorality of it.
What if I told you that I would find my action (killing the guy for a wish) to be WHOLELY immoral, and completely wrong.
I do think it is wrong for innocent people to die. If I thought killing people was alright, I'd have done it already without a wish or a genie.
I am willing to be immoral this one time, to perform an act that violates my own conscience in order to achieve something much much greater than the sum of my guilt.
In a way HighRoller would be right, that'd I'd have to live with what I've done.
Luckily for me, I don't have to live forever.
I can live with it, with the knowledge that I killed someone who didn't deserve it, in order to make the world a significantly better place.
At the moment of truth, would you stand still in your morals, even knowing that the best result hinges on you being immoral for a time?
I'm pretty sure that very system is what makes it possible to have soldiers, or cops, or heroes at all.
Can you do something "bad" for the greater "good"? I'd say that is the backbone of modern military actions. So why not be the backbone of a single action?
Yes. 100% absolutely.
In fact, I think I said this before, but if the hypothetical genie would take MY life and still grant the wish, I'd choose that option entirely over killing anyone else.
If my death would grant a cure for cancer, or 100billion dollars that would be put to an overwhelmingly altruistic use...sure, I'd die for that. Better than dying of cancer, or old age peeing on myself. Better than dying a wrinkled old fart on an oxygen tank.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
But why should someone have to die just because of your opinion? So what if you have an opinion? Why the hell should that determine the fate of someone?
@icecreamman80: the "deal with the devil" is a figure of speech. No belief in a higher power is necessary. If you were living in Nazi Germany, and they Nazis told you that you needed to shoot 1 innocent Jew (or else they would kill 100 others) would you do it? I would not. I will not collaborate with evil (and again I don't mean some mystical concept of evil, but really malevolent people).
You can only hope that everybody else will stand up for right as well.
@icecreamman80: the "deal with the devil" is a figure of speech. No belief in a higher power is necessary. If you were living in Nazi Germany, and they Nazis told you that you needed to shoot 1 innocent Jew (or else they would kill 100 others) would you do it? I would not. I will not collaborate with evil (and again I don't mean some mystical concept of evil, but really malevolent people).
You can only hope that everybody else will stand up for right as well.
On one side this seems noble, on the other it seems like you value your morality over 99 people, which in itself seems immoral.
On one side this seems noble, on the other it seems like you value your morality over 99 people, which in itself seems immoral.
Not if his morality is to the value the life and integrity of any human being.
If dcartist were to kill that human being, and make the flimsy justification of one life not mattering against 99, then he's doing precisely the opposite. He has voluntarily taken part in a system that dishonors and disregards the integrity and right to life of all human beings. Thus, he has actually diminished the value of the 99 human beings by diminishing the single human being he killed. If a single human life does not matter, if a human being's right to live is something we are to disregard, then no human being has worth. And if no single human being has worth, then 99 human beings have no worth.
If dcartist refuses to do kill a human being because he respects that person's right to life, then he is taking a moral stand that both values the individual and therefore increases, not decreases, the value of the other 99 as a result.
I know a lot more about why these wars were fought then you might think. I'm being sarcastic because the reasons that are written on war posters, or promoted on television through propaganda are often the thinnest of veils over the truth. That these wars had more to do with economic power, voting rights, government policy, or commodities, then they did with "freeing slaves" or "Japan attacked us".
Why did Japan attack us??
Is it because they were bad people who bombed Pearl Harbor for no good reason??
Or is it because after they invaded China, we stuck our nose in that business, and then created naval blockades and trade embargos upon Japan which crushed their economy and drove them into recession, until they had to act in their best interest and decided to fight us (which may or may not have been the best choice, but that is irrelevant).
I could go on about the western front too (Germany), but only if you need me to.
Why are you presenting arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying and more to do with what propagandists have tried to make you believe? I never claimed the US was the caped crusader you're making it out to be. People take up arms for more reasons than nationalism. Again, your lack of understanding is astounding me. You seem smart enough to pick the pieces apart.
Emphasis mine. What they believe is right.
The only relevant piece of information, is that it is NOT "evil" to fight against something "bad" if it is what you believe to be right. Of course, from one perspective, you're right, and from another perspective, you're wrong.
Who decides which is true?
Do you really believe a belief system is necessarily separated from reality? What a conundrum you must be in.
Innocent dissenters are killed all the time in war. People who have not drawn arms, or been the source of oppression, or the source of whatever "evil" we are fighting.
So the argument that this guy in the hypothetical is an innocent bystander is pretty solidly weak.
That wasn't the argument. Go back, read my post, think about the relationship between the two, form an answer that properly addresses my point, and then get back to me.
I mean, the bombs we drop on other countries in our "righteous" quest for freedom and democracy don't know the difference between innocent bystanders and combatants. Neither do Hamas IED's, neither do Israeli rockets, neither do NATO daisy cutters, or moabs, neither do u.s.air force missiles.
Bombs don't have to; we already do it.
Even though the above is true, I'm not going to call it an "evil" act.
Its an act, done for a reason I agree with, and so I support what we are doing. I'm sure to the people that don't agree with it, it's "evil".
Perspective my friend.
As one who believes there is an objective morality, I'd be inclined to disagree with you that perspective is relevant in determining what is moral.
Yes. Yet still, innocent bystanders who were not part of such a decision making process died, and not just ONE, but many.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload, and have died by the truckload in every war anyone has ever fought. For good reasons or bad reasons.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload everyday around the world for no reason at all. For the most insignificant of motivations.
You know what kind of effort the US has gone to reduce innocent causalities?
If 1 more innocent bystander dies, wouldn't it be nice at least for it to be for a good reason?
It'd be nice if it didn't have to happen at all. Since the goal is to eliminate it, we seek to lower the count as much as possible until we can (possibly) reach zero.
"If you're Havengul problems I feel bad for you son, I got 99 problems and a Lich ain't one." - FSM
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
On one side this seems noble, on the other it seems like you value your morality over 99 people, which in itself seems immoral.
But the practical justification (in addition to the ethical and moral one) is, "how can anything ever change if I am complicit with a will or a system that is wrong?" Should I perpetuate an evil system.
If I refuse, they'll just get somebody else.
But what if we all refuse? Or enough of us? Do we "play God" or do we try to be the "best person", the one we hope everybody else will be?
I think of the two ferry boats in TDK, where the Joker tries to gt them to blow each other up. If you are in EITHER boat and you blow up the prisoners' boat, aren't you saving a lot of innocent lives by killing some convicted dirtbags?
It's tempting to be seduced by the money and "play ball" but sorry, I'm not an assassin.
I don't think I've quite articulated the point well enough to convince you that there is a practical principle that connects the OP's scenarios and my own, but I am certain that I've heard Jewish scholars reference the idea before. It is part of the logical rationale for "not playing God" (which apply ds whether you believe in God or don't). "how can good descend from an evil act?"
Killing innocent people for money makes you a mercenary in the personal war of some wicked individual. There is a big difference between being forced by circumstances and physics to make a choice between lives ( "do I save the orphans or the senior citizens?" ) It's entirely different to bend your will to a malevolent will, no matter how much good you think you can do with the money.
For those of you saying that the death of 1 is of such little value compared to the billions you could help; I ask you, what is your minimum amount of lives you would be willing to take to 'help' the world? 1/~7billion is basically equal to 2/~7billion right? What about 3 or 10? Would you personally kill 2000 people that (and I assume this from the op) the man with the suitcase has chosen? Let's say that all those people had something in common; a trait, or shared religion.
Even more hypothetically, I guess, what if the year were 1941 and you lived in central Europe. A man offers you $100 billion to kill a person, or a few people, would you do it? I think that no matter how 'pure' your motives are for this killing(s) you would never recover from the foresight of what you have done.
My real point is that you don't know the man with the suitcase's intentions. While I would say no to all 3 situations due to moral issues I have, if I didn't have them I would be thinking about this first and foremost.
Also I would never be able to argue with saying that 1 death is o.k. since it helps 1 million or billion people simply because anything less than half of the world being discarded for the help of more than half, is the exact same argument. From this I would hope no one is willing to wipe out ~3.5 billion people for the prosperity of ~3.5+ billion people.
I don't understand Bzero, The above was my opinion that I would die to grant the wish, et al.
?????
Are you refering to the situation where the genie tells me it HAS TO BE someone else?
Also...
No one HAS TO die for my opinion. That's kind of the point of the immorality of it right?
Or is it not?
Well you were saying that you would want to be killed because it would help something, which means in your opinion people should die if it helps someone. If you don't actually think that, that's fine.
Or are you saying it's immoral not to give yourself up to save others?
Not if his morality is to the value the life and integrity of any human being.
If dcartist were to kill that human being, and make the flimsy justification of one life not mattering against 99, then he's doing precisely the opposite. He has voluntarily taken part in a system that dishonors and disregards the integrity and right to life of all human beings. Thus, he has actually diminished the value of the 99 human beings by diminishing the single human being he killed. If a single human life does not matter, if a human being's right to live is something we are to disregard, then no human being has worth. And if no single human being has worth, then 99 human beings have no worth.
If dcartist refuses to do kill a human being because he respects that person's right to life, then he is taking a moral stand that both values the individual and therefore increases, not decreases, the value of the other 99 as a result.
This makes the gross error that the 1 life "doesn't matter" (bolded emphasis mine)
All you seem to be making the same sort of mistake.
No one, not even myself has said that 1 life doesn't matter.
Its not black and white, M or ~M
Its ****ing GREY!
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM > M
M < MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
It's not diminishing to the life, to weigh results and choose the best one.
If a nasty lethal virus were to infect a small town, with the immediate threat of spreading and killing millions...you bomb the one town with napalm.
We don't have Dustin Hoffman and Cuba Gooding Jr. here, we have cause and effect, and reality.
Which brings me to my next point.
@icecreamman80: the "deal with the devil" is a figure of speech. No belief in a higher power is necessary. If you were living in Nazi Germany, and they Nazis told you that you needed to shoot 1 innocent Jew (or else they would kill 100 others) would you do it? I would not. I will not collaborate with evil (and again I don't mean some mystical concept of evil, but really malevolent people).
You can only hope that everybody else will stand up for right as well.
Absolutely. It would be nice if everyone told the Nazi officer to **** off.
But thats a dreamworld that will never happen. If everyone stood up for what is right would we even be having this discussion?
Also, you're making the erroneous argument that not being a nazi was objectively right.
I agree 100% that the Nazi's were wrong. But the Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing. Everyone is led to believe what they believe.
100 > 1.
Am I guaranteed that the 100 will be set free and live?
These are absurd hypotheticals, but here is the point.
I support someone dying for a good cause.
Saving 100 other innocent people is a good cause.
The 1 person I killed died for a good cause.
We give medals of honor to guys who jump on grenades for their buddies after all.
Don't we see in movies all the damn time where the bank hostage negotiator says "Take me instead! Let the hostages go and you can have me."
My question is this.
Why isn't the 1 inoocent Jew OFFERING himself as a lamb to save the other 100??
Isn't Jesus supposed to be awesome because he sacrificed himself for mankind?
Many > One. Its practically a proverb.
Ulfsaar
Why are you presenting arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying and more to do with what propagandists have tried to make you believe? I never claimed the US was the caped crusader you're making it out to be. People take up arms for more reasons than nationalism. Again, your lack of understanding is astounding me. You seem smart enough to pick the pieces apart.
You Claimed that my sarcasm meant I didn't understand what was going on leading up to those wars. I was responding to that.
Ulfsaar: "Your sarcasm tells me that you have no understanding of the decisions people made in the process that built up to the US entering WWII."
I may have been sarcastic. But I have a firm understanding of decisions that led to WW2. Maybe its you who don't understand.
Do you really believe a belief system is necessarily separated from reality? What a conundrum you must be in.
Not at all. You misunderstand half the things I say.
My point being, people die for good reasons, as judged by the beliefs of the people doing the killing.
If we didn't feel we were fighting for a good cause, I doubt we would be.
Patriotism often leads to the death of many innocent lives. The only thing keeping the ship from sinking is the belief that we're on the right side of things.
But what if we all refuse? Or enough of us? Do we "play God" or do we try to be the "best person", the one we hope everybody else will be?
We can't all refuse to point a gun.
The bad people will always threaten. It's up to good people to push back, even if it means killing someone. "Playing God" is a cop out.
We are our own gods. We have all the power to change the world. To overthrow tyrants, to stop criminals, to promote freedom, or protect innocent lives. We have the power. We are the gods. We (as in people, not You and I) are the devils too. We subjugate, we oppress, we murder and rape.
Is curing diseases playing god? Is testing medicine on lab rats playing god? Is reseting a broken bone playing god? Is sending 100,000 boys to die fighting a crazy dictator playing god??
Nope, its "Playing responsible human being"
There's no God out there stopping violence for us, there's no god out there curing diseases for us.
We have to do the work.
I support a good cause, even if it may mean some innocent lives are lost.
I support a good cause in the face of collateral damage.
I'd be a rediculous hypocrit to support our war in Iraq, and yet be unwilling to fire a missile myself.
I think of the two ferry boats in TDK, where the Joker tries to gt them to blow each other up. If you are in EITHER boat and you blow up the prisoners' boat, aren't you saving a lot of innocent lives by killing some convicted dirtbags?
I agree with this.
But in the real world, Jokers exist, and Batmans don't.
Both ferry's would blow if noone acts rationally.
The ferry scenario in TDK is commendable, and awesome. I loved how that played out.
But its a movie. In real life, you better act to save lives...because no caped avenger is going to be there to save the day.
So by not pushing the button, in reality you kill everyone.
I don't live in a dreamworld were as long as I don't do something immoral, it'll all work out.
As one who believes there is an objective morality, I'd be inclined to disagree with you that perspective is relevant in determining what is moral.
Then we must agree to disagree.
I don't believe in an objective morality. If one does exist, we have not found it yet anyways. Not one person can demonstrate that they have found the ultimate moral truth in the world.
All these moral truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them. That makes them nonobjective.
Winners usually write the history and decide the righteousness of actions.
Can you demonstrate objective morality for me?
I am not saying it is impossible, I'd say I'm agnostic towards it's existence.
However, the existing mountain of evidence points to a subjective morality, not an objective one.
I went through this in another thread till my face was blue. I don't intend to do it again.
You know what kind of effort the US has gone to reduce innocent causalities?
Yes. A GREAT DEAL of effort is taken on OUR parts (and sometimes on the parts of other militaries, combatants) to reduce innocent casualties.
They still happen, on both sides.
Have we decided to halt all agression or offense? Hell no. The fight must go on, we try to reduce innocent casualties, but the fight must go on. Despite the losses.
It'd be nice if it didn't have to happen at all. Since the goal is to eliminate it, we seek to lower the count as much as possible until we can (possibly) reach zero.
Absolutely.
When did I ever say I WANTED these things to happen?
Look,
This guy could die of cancer someday, or get hit by a truck someday, or just have a severe heart attack. He IS going to die. So am I, so are you.
I kill him, and wish for a world without rape and murder. I think he just died for a good cause.
I'd rather it be me, but thats not what the genie said is it?
Well you were saying that you would want to be killed because it would help something, which means in your opinion people should die if it helps someone. If you don't actually think that, that's fine.
Or are you saying it's immoral not to give yourself up to save others?
I don't think people SHOULD die if it helps. I think if someone HAS to die if it helps, then they didn't die in vain, but for a good cause.
I've answered this before. In response to other threads or the Trolley Problem discussion.
I think it is more immoral to NOT act, as opposed to acting immorally to achieve a greater good.
I'd give myself to save lives should the situation present itself. I'm an organ donor, registered, and a BMT registered. Someday maybe someone who needs it can have my Kidney or some bone marrow or something. When I do die, hopefully people will get some value out of my body parts.
If I saw a situation with some people in danger, I'd risk myself to save them. Absolutely without hesitation.
If you had a choice between innaction that leads to self preservation, and action that leads to certain death, but the result of action is of greater value than your life...I think you should act.
This makes the gross error that the 1 life "doesn't matter" (bolded emphasis mine)
All you seem to be making the same sort of mistake.
No one, not even myself has said that 1 life doesn't matter.
You've said exactly that.
If a nasty lethal virus were to infect a small town, with the immediate threat of spreading and killing millions...you bomb the one town with napalm.
We don't have Dustin Hoffman and Cuba Gooding Jr. here, we have cause and effect, and reality.
That's not analogous to the OP. In the OP, the person you're killing hasn't committed a crime. He hasn't been given a choice. He presents no threat to anyone. Crap, he's a stranger, so you even don't know who he is.
Nothing says you have to kill him. You're not neutralizing a threat, even an unintentional one. You're choosing to violate someone's right to life. Of course you are disregarding the value of that one person.
And don't give me this sanctimonious crap. You're not doing this for any sense of morality. This isn't about anybody else. You're doing this so you can be a hero and have people give you affirmation. You even said as much.
Absolutely. It would be nice if everyone told the Nazi officer to **** off.
But thats a dreamworld that will never happen. If everyone stood up for what is right would we even be having this discussion?
That's a great mentality, the world's broken and people are imperfect and do lousy things, so let's disregard all incentive to make the world better or put any responsibility on ourselves to act morally.
In this mindset, you don't have to believe in anything, you need not sacrifice anything, you can just sit in a corner and do nothing and talk **** about the people actually taking risks while thinking of people other than themselves. Zero chance of you getting hurt, you can act self-righteous and proud of yourself all day long, and no one will call you out on your self-centeredness because they're off actually doing the work it takes to build a better world.
Also, you're making the erroneous argument that not being a nazi was objectively right.
Nothing about that is erroneous.
I agree 100% that the Nazi's were wrong. But the Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing. Everyone is led to believe what they believe.
So what someone believes is automatically right?
I believe God exists. You seem to want to tell me that's wrong any chance you get. Is it subjective or objective based on what you feel benefits you most in a given time?
We give medals of honor to guys who jump on grenades for their buddies after all.
Because they sacrificed their lives instead of murdering strangers.
The guys who jump on grenades do so out of respect for the lives of those whom they are saving. They do so out of integrity and respect for the integrity of others, and out of the willingness to risk everything for what is right.
What about the guy who murders a man in cold blood to appease a sadistic regime and to perpetuate the oppression of the Nazi party? What's he risking in all of this?
Why isn't the 1 inoocent Jew OFFERING himself as a lamb to save the other 100??
You would criticize the Jew without asking the broader question about why the **** the Nazis would perform the Holocaust in the first place and why anyone would knowingly go along with their plans?
We can't all refuse to point a gun.
The bad people will always threaten. It's up to good people to push back, even if it means killing someone.
Which is the justification you're using to not push back at all and instead go right along with what the Nazis want.
We have to do the work.
The work of making a better world? I thought the world was crap and thus there is no responsibility for you to do so?
You can't argue that you, based on the brokenness of the world, have no incentive of behaving morally or ideally and then make some kind of compelling speech about the importance of the individual to adhere to ideals. That's inherently contradictory.
Or we could go with the honest assessment of the situation: it's easier to cave into the Nazis demands than to oppose them. The latter would be difficult and scary and involve taking great personal risks for the hope of a brighter world. It's a lot easier to just give them what they want and pretend you're not actually helping them out and perpetuating their oppression.
Absolutely.
When did I ever say I WANTED these things to happen?
The topic of conversation is your choice to murder a guy. You are choosing to murder someone. So you clearly wanted that to happen.
Look,
This guy could die of cancer someday, or get hit by a truck someday, or just have a severe heart attack.
No, he will never die of any of those things. You murdered him. And claiming he was going to die anyway therefore it doesn't really matter doesn't absolve you of committing murder, and it definitely doesn't demonstrate any kind of respect for the value of a single life. There's saying you respect and value things and then there's actually respecting and valuing them.
One of the main differences between consequentialism and deontology is that generally, consequentialists do not or cannot see a difference due to the agent's actions (or non-actions), but simply the consequences. That being said, I agree with it.
I feel this Nazi situation isnt being taken as it should. Everyone is arguing these loopholes about what could happen or would happen when the real questions are do you feel killing 1 person to save 100 is ethical? Do you feel taking a non-action in an ethical event makes you responsible?
I feel both of these questions are simple. All things being equal and the only option you have is to kill 1 person to save 100, you should. By not killing 1 person, you are essentially killing 100 even though you take no action. If you take no action in a general sense, watching a child drowned in a pool or a man bleeding out and letting them die would not make you responsible in the same sense as not killing that 1 person. The only way around this is that there is a threshold as to when action should be taken and this threshold is compared to the outcomes of the situation. This is, in essence, utilitarianism.
Granted, I understand the gut reaction to having the kill an innocent person so save 100. Its a gut feeling for a good reason! Having respect for humans is a good thing in our society. However, if I had the option to kill 1 person to save 100 (all things being equal) I would, because me not means I killed 99 more people.
On the issue of killing for money, a resounding no. Since the fact that that money would save more than one life is not necessarily certain, if it was certain than making the outcome a monetary reward is irrelevant.
first situation, i must be in desperate situation to stongly consider it.
(is the genies wish going to grant truely anything aside from the mentioned exclussions?)
second situation, its a freaken genie, that activation cost of the wish does suck for someone but its probably worth it if your gunna consider doing it.
3rd situation sounds similar to the 2nd, you get a "wish for anything" i can't see my responses being all that different. though you do put conditions how the kill must be made.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Collaborative Pub: Ice Cold Thoughts Always On Tap Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
--------------------------------------------------- Vintage will rise again!Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
One of the main differences between consequentialism and deontology is that generally, consequentialists do not or cannot see a difference due to the agent's actions (or non-actions), but simply the consequences. That being said, I agree with it.
I feel this Nazi situation isnt being taken as it should. Everyone is arguing these loopholes about what could happen or would happen when the real questions are do you feel killing 1 person to save 100 is ethical? Do you feel taking a non-action in an ethical event makes you responsible?
Actually the Nazi example is NOT that.
The Nazi example is about whether you "play ball" with evil, or ultimately say "NO".
If EVERYBODY "plays ball", nothing ever changes.
If EVERYBODY refuses, then the Nazis eventually can't play that kind of coercion. Their murders are not guided by deterministic PHYSICS. They are guided by their INTIMIDATION and WILL.
Consequentialists, in trying the weigh the "big picture" (colloquially known as "playing God" ), are missing the bigger picture that the bad guys can be forced to change too.
Consequentialists are collaborators, embolden the evil, and by compromising to take the 'best course" eventually all get gassed. Deontologists in the long run, can make a change by adamantly sticking to their "**** you", and either turn some Nazis, or take some Nazis with them.
A Nazi and sees a consequentialist, he sees a tool he can bend to his every will.
A Nazi and see a deontologist, he may have to respect him, or compromise.
Choosing which boat from a hurricane is different from killing complying with an evil person's threat.
-
As another note:
What do you think "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" is about? Some might argue its consequentialism, because negotiation might theoretically encourage more terrorism... but really it is more deontological. If a terrorist said he'd blow up a schoolbus full of kids, unless we EXECUTED a specific janitor, would we even CONSIDER it?
I've only ever implied that Many > 1
If I mispoke and ACTUALLY said "1 doesn't matter" then I apologize. My intent is only to say that Many > 1.
That's not analogous to the OP. In the OP, the person you're killing hasn't committed a crime. He hasn't been given a choice. He presents no threat to anyone. Crap, he's a stranger, so you even don't know who he is.
It wasn't supposed to be.
It was an entirely different hypothetical situation.
Question: Is the rest of the population not getting infected worth bombing one small town?
I say yes.
"Freedom" and "Democracy" have historically been worth killing THOUSANDS of people, from the days when we were swinging swords, to the days when we were bombing many towns, and even large metropolises.
(and I agree that it is worth it)
I believe that if Freedom and Democracy are worth the lives of others because they are good causes...then there are other things that are also worth the lives of others.
Like say, a wish to cure cancer, or a wish to eliminate war and poverty.
Nothing says you have to kill him. You're not neutralizing a threat, even an unintentional one. You're choosing to violate someone's right to life. Of course you are disregarding the value of that one person.
True. I never said he deserved to die. Only that when he does, he would be dying for a good cause...or you know, he could grow old and die of kidney failure or something.
His awareness of the fact he died for a good cause is irrelevant.
And don't give me this sanctimonious crap. You're not doing this for any sense of morality. This isn't about anybody else. You're doing this so you can be a hero and have people give you affirmation. You even said as much.
If I could do it in secret I would. I said that before.
However, in one of the OP's scenarios, we are specifically KNOWN to have done what we did.
OP:
In the third, you have to kill someone in front of their family and they would remember the event. People would know who you are, but again, you get one wish for anything except making the people forget, more wishes, etc. Would you kill the stranger?
If people are going to KNOW I did this...then maybe, just maybe, I can turn from "cold blooded mercenary! booo! booo!" into "Well, he did end poverty and war, and improve the lives of millions"
Get the point?
That's a great mentality, the world's broken and people are imperfect and do lousy things, so let's disregard all incentive to make the world better or put any responsibility on ourselves to act morally.
No its not a great mentality. But it is one that actually represents reality.
Go ahead, keep your morals while 100 people die.
I am not even going to judge you. You may be right about everything.
However, if I knew for certain I could save a hundred by killing one, I'd take the offer.
This decision is made ALL THE TIME. EVERYDAY.
We have fought wars, and killed thousands in order to obtain what we believe to be the best result.
I find it a strange moral compass to dispise the killing of 1 innocent person for a good cause, and throw a ticker-tape parade for the killing of many innocent people for a good cause. And if you don't think that many innocent people have been blown up, or shot, or burned to death in our pursuits of these good causes, you're blind to reality.
"But we didn't intend for the innocents to die, IcecreamMan! And we try very hard to make sure we reduce the number of innocents that do!"
Whose rationalizing now?
In this mindset, you don't have to believe in anything, you need not sacrifice anything, you can just sit in a corner and do nothing and talk **** about the people actually taking risks while thinking of people other than themselves. Zero chance of you getting hurt, you can act self-righteous and proud of yourself all day long, and no one will call you out on your self-centeredness because they're off actually doing the work it takes to build a better world.
Just because I don't believe in an Objective morality, doesn't mean I don't HAVE A MORALITY.
I share much of the morality I have been conditioned and raised to agree with.
I am an American, and a freedom loving capitalist. But I am also a little conservative leaning on some things, and extremely hard on crime.
I don't believe that morality is objective. This doesn't mean I am not willing to fight for, and support the SUBjective morality that I believe in.
This is the simple truth.
The Nazi's had to die, and had to be stopped because we believe they were absolutely wrong and evil.
All morality is based on belief. Beliefs shaped by experience, environment, upbringing, and conditioning.
Nothing about that is erroneous.
Prove that morality is objective. I'll wait.
So what someone believes is automatically right?
To them maybe, to me maybe not.
You believe God exists. To you, its right. To me, not so much.
I believe God exists. You seem to want to tell me that's wrong any chance you get. Is it subjective or objective based on what you feel benefits you most in a given time?
Subjective.
Yes, I tell you you're wrong. Yes, I tell you that I don't believe you.
I can't PROVE it though. < ---- See that, thats called reality.
Gods existence is an objective, Yes/No black and white problem.
He either DOES, or he DOES NOT.
You believe he does. Great. I don't. Neither of us is capable of proving to the other that our side is objectively true.
We can sit here ALL DAY, all year even and talk about how the Nazi's were evil, and wrong, and what they did was horrible and beyond any reasonable justification.
But they DID justify it. They DID believe in it.
But just like many people sit in America and protest the war in Iraq, or other things our government does. The DOING get DONE anyways.
Who is right? The protestors? The supporters?
Because they sacrificed their lives instead of murdering strangers.
The guys who jump on grenades do so out of respect for the lives of those whom they are saving. They do so out of integrity and respect for the integrity of others, and out of the willingness to risk everything for what is right.
I agree.
What are you willing to risk to do what you believe is right?
I'm willing to risk everything up to and including personal immorality.
What about the guy who murders a man in cold blood to appease a sadistic regime and to perpetuate the oppression of the Nazi party? What's he risking in all of this?
Are we still talking about the 1jew vs. 100jews??
If so, he is risking his own conscience wellbeing for 100 lives.
If we are talking about real life, and not wish granting genies, or trustworthy Nazi officers...then it's stupid.
In real life, in Germany, I would NOT have killed the ONE innocent Jew.
I'm not stupid. In real life, the 100 would just be killed later, or sent to a different camp, or even if released, recaptured, or the Nazi would just be flat out lying to me in order to see what i would do.
In real life, I wouldn't TRUST the Nazi officer to actually let the 100 others live and go free.
The whole point of the hypothetical is that you are guaranteed to get the positive result. Without that guarantee, then it changes the game entirely.
I am not out there killing people right now, OR throwing myself into volcanoes, because in real life, there is no 100billion, there is no wish, there is no benefit.
You would criticize the Jew without asking the broader question about why the **** the Nazis would perform the Holocaust in the first place and why anyone would knowingly go along with their plans?
I don't need to ask that question. The Holocaust HAPPENED. The DEED was DONE. You can't undo it.
So then, in a hypothetical, I ask why one of the jews in the group to be killed, offer himself? Instead of me (Who am I in this anyways? Am I a German Citizen? Am I another Jew? Am I a new Nazi recruit right out of boot camp?) being presented with the option to kill 1 to save 100?
If I'm a German citizen, maybe I save noone because I am already brainwashed and see the jews as less than human.
If I'm another Jew, maybe I do it out of fear that if I don't shot the 1, I'll be shot and the 100 will die anyways.
If I'm a fresh Nazi grunt, maybe I question the officer why we would let ANY of them go? Or maybe I refuse to shoot the 1 because it could have been a test to see if I was a jewish sympathizer.
The real answer is:
I'm sure many of them (jewish captives, and maybe a few german citizens and nazi grunts) actually DID try. To save their families, or their friends, or their former neighbors. Some of the ones who tried this sacrifice, were probably just shot, or herded into a traincar, or laughed at and told to bug off.
Many (jewish captives) were probably so emotionally and mentally overwhelmed they just did what the uniforms told them to do, hoping that they'd make it out of this whole thing alive.
Which is the justification you're using to not push back at all and instead go right along with what the Nazis want.
Laughable response.
I'm not going along with them.
I'm trying to save the MOST jews I can, even at the cost of my own moral conscience.
Read above.
Also...maybe when I do shoot the 1 to save 100...I get shot myself for being a sympathizer.
But if I had the guarantee that 100 other jews would be set free and live (as opposed to the reality that they would die anyways or just be recaptured)
I'd kill the 1 to save 100. My conscience is not worth 100 lives.
The work of making a better world? I thought the world was crap and thus there is no responsibility for you to do so?
Thats not what I said at all.
Yes I believe the world IS full of crap.
I also believe good work must be done to make it LESS crappy.
We just disagree on what counts as good work.
You can't argue that you, based on the brokenness of the world, have no incentive of behaving morally or ideally and then make some kind of compelling speech about the importance of the individual to adhere to ideals. That's inherently contradictory.
You have very poor understanding of what I said.
I have TONS of incentive to behave morally and ideally.
The world IS broken, and I have a young son who will grow up into it.
You and I simply disagree about what counts as moral/immoral actions.
Or we could go with the honest assessment of the situation: it's easier to cave into the Nazis demands than to oppose them. The latter would be difficult and scary and involve taking great personal risks for the hope of a brighter world. It's a lot easier to just give them what they want and pretend you're not actually helping them out and perpetuating their oppression.
I disagree that <trying to save the most jews possible> is caving into the Nazi's.
Sure, it would have been DAMN EASY to just lay down and let 'em take over the world.
Fighting them was the harder choice. It costed thousands of lives, some of them innocent noncombatants.
But we risked these lives, and buried these people FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
Right?
The topic of conversation is your choice to murder a guy. You are choosing to murder someone. So you clearly wanted that to happen.
What i was saying is that I didn't want the holocaust to happen. I was still refering to a different hypothetical.
But it happened, and in the midst of it happening, I'd try to save the most jews possible.
I'm not even "pro-semite", I just agree that the Nazi's (and their genocide) were wrong.
No, he will never die of any of those things. You murdered him. And claiming he was going to die anyway therefore it doesn't really matter doesn't absolve you of committing murder, and it definitely doesn't demonstrate any kind of respect for the value of a single life. There's saying you respect and value things and then there's actually respecting and valuing them.
Where did I say "doesn't really matter"??
I'd rather die for a good cause, then die of a heart attack, or die of cancer, or die of kidney failure, or die 99 years old with age spots and wrinkles everywhere.
I never said I would be absolved of my crime. In fact, I said yes to option #3, even though everyone would know about my crime.
The greater good > My innocence/conscience
There's saying you respect and value things, and then there is being a moron.
There are 7 billion of us.
If I died today, 0.0000000047% of the population would care. That's even being extremely generous to myself. I bet I can add another zero after the decimal.
You have to be Princess ****ing Diana or Michael Jackson to approach or exceed even 1%.
If I could die, to improve the lives of 1% (thats 70,000,000 by the way)
I glady would. Sign me up.
If I could improve the lives of 1%, at the cost of my personal moral conviction, and 1 innocent bystander. I'd be a self righteous fool to pass.
****
I thought of something.
Opinions welcome.
Would a wish for "All human waste and garbage in the world to disappear" be a good wish?
I'm just thinking that it might save/improve the environment in such a way that it benefits all inhabitants, human and nonhuman?
Sure, we will make more, and I'm sure the wish would be a one-time deal.
But it would get all the plastic and trash out of the oceans, the landfills would be clear. All those sea turtles choked by six-pack rings.
The pollution reset button might have a much larger impact than even I understand as I'm not an ecologist.
The Nazi example is about whether you "play ball" with evil, or ultimately say "NO".
If EVERYBODY "plays ball", nothing ever changes.
This isn't accurate.
Approx. 6 million jews were murdered.
With the guarantee of 100 > 1 being saved. (Obviously -1 each time)
Only approx.60,000 would have to "play ball" in order to save the other approx.5,940,000.
5,940,000 > 60,000
If EVERYBODY refuses, then the Nazis eventually can't play that kind of coercion. Their murders are not guided by deterministic PHYSICS. They are guided by their INTIMIDATION and WILL.
If everyone they make the offer to refuse.
Then all die.
They're STILL going to die. The murders happen.
But given the guarantee that 100 live at the cost of one?
Consequentialists, in trying the weigh the "big picture" (colloquially known as "playing God" ), are missing the bigger picture that the bad guys can be forced to change too.
Only from the inside. As in, the Nazi party would have had to fail to recruit soldiers, and fail to gain support from german citizens.
I completely agree with your point. But it didn't happen.
So when I weigh the big picture...I weigh it upon what actually happened not what could have been.
Consequentialists are collaborators, embolden the evil, and by compromising to take the 'best course" eventually all get gassed. Deontologists in the long run, can make a change by adamantly sticking to their "**** you", and either turn some Nazis, or take some Nazis with them.
Back this up with something.
A Nazi and sees a consequentialist, he sees a tool he can bend to his every will.
Depends on the consequentialist. Everyone has a line they draw.
A Nazi and see a deontologist, he may have to respect him, or compromise.
Or, just shoot him.
What do you think "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" is about? Some might argue its consequentialism, because negotiation might theoretically encourage more terrorism... but really it is more deontological. If a terrorist said he'd blow up a schoolbus full of kids, unless we EXECUTED a specific janitor, would we even CONSIDER it?
Thats exactly why.
If we give in to terrorists, it emboldens more terrorism, and 9 times out of 10, they kill the hostages anyways, or they lied, or they make more demands, or they change the game up.
We don't negotiate because there is no TRUST in the process.
We cannot TRUST them to release all the hostages if we give them their helicopter.
We wouldn't kill the janitor, because it wouldn't actually save the school bus.
Also.
Please don't ignore the fact that in these situations, we are always buying time in order to find another solution to the problem.
We don't want to kill the janitor, but we dont want to lose the school bus either, so we work to find a way to kill the hostage taker, or solve the problem without losing EITHER the janitor or the bus.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
One of the main differences between consequentialism and deontology is that generally, consequentialists do not or cannot see a difference due to the agent's actions (or non-actions), but simply the consequences.
The immediate problem I see with this is that we assume perfect knowledge of consequences with actions.
When this isn't reflective of reality at all. The simple truth is that people who go up against unimaginable odds out of a desire to adhere to their morals even though it's seems fruitless can very well achieve things that no one thought possible. It has happened throughout history. The Persian War was won by a minority of Greek states who stood up to the Persian Empire not thinking they would win, but out of moral stance.
I feel this Nazi situation isnt being taken as it should. Everyone is arguing these loopholes about what could happen or would happen when the real questions are do you feel killing 1 person to save 100 is ethical?
Except then you're not being consequentialist anymore, because to adhere to consequentialism is about looking at what could or would happen.
Consequentialism forces you to look at the problem and deal with the consequences, which requires you to deal with the complexity of the problem. Dismissing the complexity is dismissing the actual consequences of the action. You're going against yourself.
Do you feel taking a non-action in an ethical event makes you responsible?
Well that would depend on the event and the consequences, wouldn't it?
I feel both of these questions are simple. All things being equal and the only option you have is to kill 1 person to save 100, you should. By not killing 1 person, you are essentially killing 100 even though you take no action.
You're almost going into deontological ethics now.
Also, no, you aren't killing 100. The Nazis are killing 100.
The only way around this is that there is a threshold as to when action should be taken and this threshold is compared to the outcomes of the situation. This is, in essence, utilitarianism.
Ok, is it more beneficial to appease the Nazis or to go against them?
See how consequences of actions get murky? It's almost as though you need a vision of what the world should be to get to where you want to go, isn't it?
Granted, I understand the gut reaction to having the kill an innocent person so save 100. Its a gut feeling for a good reason! Having respect for humans is a good thing in our society. However, if I had the option to kill 1 person to save 100 (all things being equal) I would, because me not means I killed 99 more people.
Except you didn't kill them, the Nazis did. Appeasing the Nazis only means strengthening their regime. You've pretty much become one of them by killing this man.
On the issue of killing for money, a resounding no. Since the fact that that money would save more than one life is not necessarily certain, if it was certain than making the outcome a monetary reward is irrelevant.
What if it were trillions of dollars? You could pay off the national debt!
If EVERYBODY refuses, then the Nazis eventually can't play that kind of coercion. Their murders are not guided by deterministic PHYSICS. They are guided by their INTIMIDATION and WILL.
This is correct. If no one takes any risk to change the situation and instead accepts the world as it is, then the world will never change for the better.
A consequentalist wouldn't play ball because he knew the outcome of it would be less beneficial than playing ball.
Saying that he simply would choose to play along doesn't work because his decisions are outcome based.
See now you completely missed the wisdom of his point. We do not negotiate with terrorists not out of consequentialist stance, but out of a deontological (I would really respect this website more if the spellcheck didn't go nuts at this word... or at "spellcheck") stance. We don't even consider the idea of caving in to the terrorist's demands.
So we're going from a deontological stance. The fact that you're saying this results in better results means you're admitting the deontological stance is superior in this circumstance. And in fact it is.
So by choosing the lesser of two evils and killing an innocent man, you still commit evil and give into another malevolent force.
Let's take your Hitler argument, what if malevolent force A enables you to kill Hitler, then what? You saved the Jews, gypsies, and friends. However, in the cascade of events we do not have specific people born necessary at specific events to provide things such as a cure for other diseases.
We simply do not know everything, especially if that man in particular may already have the cure for cancer and may have other cures in their life time ahead.
Ambition must be made to counteract ambition.
Individualities may form communities, but it is institutions alone that can create a nation.
Nothing succeeds like the appearance of success.
Here is my principle: Taxes shall be levied according to ability to pay. That is the only American principle.
Would you die if those things were guaranteed? Or is it just a one way street; you're willing to kill someone for those things, but not yourself.
Sales Thread
Um, just because something "can" happen doesn't mean it "HAS" to happen, with the exception of things going wrong of course.
In a time of war, people must take sides and fight for who they believe is (most) right. And oftentimes, people are put into a situation they don't want to be in, like German citizens in the Nazi army. But we had no choice; we had to stand against them to protect ourselves, and unfortunately that meant that we had to go through the soldiers pointing the guns at our faces.
The man we're killing in the hypothetical has not drawn arms against people; he is not a source nor a cause of cancer. He is an innocent bystander (that nobody will miss him is an irrelevant point that aims to ignore the fact that he has rights independent of others' knowledge of his existence) and if we want to try and move away from the many tragedies of war it would be in our best interest not to kill him.
Two sides stood against one another; a decision was made by both.
Your sarcasm tells me that you have no understanding of the decisions people made in the process that built up to the US entering WWII.
You're trying to diminish the immorality of your action by holding it to things other people have chosen to do. This is called tu quoque.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
Yes. 100% absolutely.
In fact, I think I said this before, but if the hypothetical genie would take MY life and still grant the wish, I'd choose that option entirely over killing anyone else.
If my death would grant a cure for cancer, or 100billion dollars that would be put to an overwhelmingly altruistic use...sure, I'd die for that. Better than dying of cancer, or old age peeing on myself. Better than dying a wrinkled old fart on an oxygen tank.
Of course, that is just my opinion.
You believe in Evil? I don't. So what malevolent force? Isn't it just me? I believe I am solely responsible for my actions, not evil or malevolent forces.
I believe that there are good reasons and bad reasons. Killing isn't evil if its done for good reason, and even the "bad guys" often claim they have one.
You must be one of the "objective morality" people.
However, there is always another perspective. Not one person I have ever seen or heard of has the ultimate moral truth on their side, and since we are not omniscient, all these "well we don't know all the details or the future" arguments are absurd.
In the end, we decide for ourselves if the actions we took were good or bad. Maybe you believe there is a heaven or hell, or a God to judge, more power to ya buddy. I don't.
So we shouldn't kill some horribly bad people...because you know, it's just possible we might upset the future and lose the cure for cancer, or sickle cell anemia? wait that needs two
This thought process would end the world miserably.
Should we not hang this serial rapist? After all, he is smart, he might develop the next alternative fuel!
Not knowing the future, and not being omniscient, are arguments TO ACT, not to abstain from action.
I never said I was time traveling and killing his mom before he is born. I was simply talking about killing the guy based on what he did do.
What I said was
"Wouldn't it have been nice if we could have killed ONE person to stop Hitler?"
- That ONE person, being Hitler.
But even if we did kill him, I doubt the armies of Germany would have suddenly surrendered. We would likely still need to kill thousands in order to obtain victory. That was my point.
What is this malevolent force you speak of? As far as I know, people do things. PEOPLE. Not malevolent forces.
People war, kill, rape, pillage, cure, treat, save, love, hate...
You believe in the devil?
I know a lot more about why these wars were fought then you might think. I'm being sarcastic because the reasons that are written on war posters, or promoted on television through propaganda are often the thinnest of veils over the truth. That these wars had more to do with economic power, voting rights, government policy, or commodities, then they did with "freeing slaves" or "Japan attacked us".
Why did Japan attack us??
Is it because they were bad people who bombed Pearl Harbor for no good reason??
Or is it because after they invaded China, we stuck our nose in that business, and then created naval blockades and trade embargos upon Japan which crushed their economy and drove them into recession, until they had to act in their best interest and decided to fight us (which may or may not have been the best choice, but that is irrelevant).
I could go on about the western front too (Germany), but only if you need me to.
Emphasis mine. What they believe is right.
The only relevant piece of information, is that it is NOT "evil" to fight against something "bad" if it is what you believe to be right. Of course, from one perspective, you're right, and from another perspective, you're wrong.
Who decides which is true?
Innocent dissenters are killed all the time in war. People who have not drawn arms, or been the source of oppression, or the source of whatever "evil" we are fighting.
So the argument that this guy in the hypothetical is an innocent bystander is pretty solidly weak.
I mean, the bombs we drop on other countries in our "righteous" quest for freedom and democracy don't know the difference between innocent bystanders and combatants. Neither do Hamas IED's, neither do Israeli rockets, neither do NATO daisy cutters, or moabs, neither do u.s.air force missiles.
Even though the above is true, I'm not going to call it an "evil" act.
Its an act, done for a reason I agree with, and so I support what we are doing. I'm sure to the people that don't agree with it, it's "evil".
Perspective my friend.
Yes. Yet still, innocent bystanders who were not part of such a decision making process died, and not just ONE, but many.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload, and have died by the truckload in every war anyone has ever fought. For good reasons or bad reasons.
Innocent bystanders die by the truckload everyday around the world for no reason at all. For the most insignificant of motivations.
If 1 more innocent bystander dies, wouldn't it be nice at least for it to be for a good reason?
Sure it is pretty pragmatic.
I am however, not young. I'm not just some ignorant teenager expressing his angst. I'm an adult, with a family of my own, and I've been over enough hot coals in my life to know what it feels like to get burned.
That is only assuming I am trying to diminishing the immorality of it.
What if I told you that I would find my action (killing the guy for a wish) to be WHOLELY immoral, and completely wrong.
I do think it is wrong for innocent people to die. If I thought killing people was alright, I'd have done it already without a wish or a genie.
I am willing to be immoral this one time, to perform an act that violates my own conscience in order to achieve something much much greater than the sum of my guilt.
In a way HighRoller would be right, that'd I'd have to live with what I've done.
Luckily for me, I don't have to live forever.
I can live with it, with the knowledge that I killed someone who didn't deserve it, in order to make the world a significantly better place.
At the moment of truth, would you stand still in your morals, even knowing that the best result hinges on you being immoral for a time?
I'm pretty sure that very system is what makes it possible to have soldiers, or cops, or heroes at all.
Can you do something "bad" for the greater "good"? I'd say that is the backbone of modern military actions. So why not be the backbone of a single action?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
But why should someone have to die just because of your opinion? So what if you have an opinion? Why the hell should that determine the fate of someone?
?????
Are you refering to the situation where the genie tells me it HAS TO BE someone else?
Also...
No one HAS TO die for my opinion. That's kind of the point of the immorality of it right?
Or is it not?
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You can only hope that everybody else will stand up for right as well.
On one side this seems noble, on the other it seems like you value your morality over 99 people, which in itself seems immoral.
Not if his morality is to the value the life and integrity of any human being.
If dcartist were to kill that human being, and make the flimsy justification of one life not mattering against 99, then he's doing precisely the opposite. He has voluntarily taken part in a system that dishonors and disregards the integrity and right to life of all human beings. Thus, he has actually diminished the value of the 99 human beings by diminishing the single human being he killed. If a single human life does not matter, if a human being's right to live is something we are to disregard, then no human being has worth. And if no single human being has worth, then 99 human beings have no worth.
If dcartist refuses to do kill a human being because he respects that person's right to life, then he is taking a moral stand that both values the individual and therefore increases, not decreases, the value of the other 99 as a result.
Why are you presenting arguments that have nothing to do with what I'm saying and more to do with what propagandists have tried to make you believe? I never claimed the US was the caped crusader you're making it out to be. People take up arms for more reasons than nationalism. Again, your lack of understanding is astounding me. You seem smart enough to pick the pieces apart.
Do you really believe a belief system is necessarily separated from reality? What a conundrum you must be in.
That wasn't the argument. Go back, read my post, think about the relationship between the two, form an answer that properly addresses my point, and then get back to me.
Bombs don't have to; we already do it.
As one who believes there is an objective morality, I'd be inclined to disagree with you that perspective is relevant in determining what is moral.
You know what kind of effort the US has gone to reduce innocent causalities?
It'd be nice if it didn't have to happen at all. Since the goal is to eliminate it, we seek to lower the count as much as possible until we can (possibly) reach zero.
"In a world where money talks, silence is horrifying."
Ashcoat Bear of Limited
If I refuse, they'll just get somebody else.
But what if we all refuse? Or enough of us? Do we "play God" or do we try to be the "best person", the one we hope everybody else will be?
I think of the two ferry boats in TDK, where the Joker tries to gt them to blow each other up. If you are in EITHER boat and you blow up the prisoners' boat, aren't you saving a lot of innocent lives by killing some convicted dirtbags?
It's tempting to be seduced by the money and "play ball" but sorry, I'm not an assassin.
I don't think I've quite articulated the point well enough to convince you that there is a practical principle that connects the OP's scenarios and my own, but I am certain that I've heard Jewish scholars reference the idea before. It is part of the logical rationale for "not playing God" (which apply ds whether you believe in God or don't). "how can good descend from an evil act?"
Killing innocent people for money makes you a mercenary in the personal war of some wicked individual. There is a big difference between being forced by circumstances and physics to make a choice between lives ( "do I save the orphans or the senior citizens?" ) It's entirely different to bend your will to a malevolent will, no matter how much good you think you can do with the money.
Even more hypothetically, I guess, what if the year were 1941 and you lived in central Europe. A man offers you $100 billion to kill a person, or a few people, would you do it? I think that no matter how 'pure' your motives are for this killing(s) you would never recover from the foresight of what you have done.
My real point is that you don't know the man with the suitcase's intentions. While I would say no to all 3 situations due to moral issues I have, if I didn't have them I would be thinking about this first and foremost.
Also I would never be able to argue with saying that 1 death is o.k. since it helps 1 million or billion people simply because anything less than half of the world being discarded for the help of more than half, is the exact same argument. From this I would hope no one is willing to wipe out ~3.5 billion people for the prosperity of ~3.5+ billion people.
http://forums.mtgsalvation.com/showthread.php?p=4688508#post4688508
Wall of Denial - "It provides what every discerning mage requires—time to think."
Standard
BU Control
G Summoning Trap
Extended
RW Ionrakul Deathrender
RU Pyromancer Ascension
Legacy
GRB 2 Land Belcher
Well you were saying that you would want to be killed because it would help something, which means in your opinion people should die if it helps someone. If you don't actually think that, that's fine.
Or are you saying it's immoral not to give yourself up to save others?
This makes the gross error that the 1 life "doesn't matter" (bolded emphasis mine)
All you seem to be making the same sort of mistake.
No one, not even myself has said that 1 life doesn't matter.
Its not black and white, M or ~M
Its ****ing GREY!
MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM > M
M < MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
It's not diminishing to the life, to weigh results and choose the best one.
If a nasty lethal virus were to infect a small town, with the immediate threat of spreading and killing millions...you bomb the one town with napalm.
We don't have Dustin Hoffman and Cuba Gooding Jr. here, we have cause and effect, and reality.
Which brings me to my next point.
Absolutely. It would be nice if everyone told the Nazi officer to **** off.
But thats a dreamworld that will never happen. If everyone stood up for what is right would we even be having this discussion?
Also, you're making the erroneous argument that not being a nazi was objectively right.
I agree 100% that the Nazi's were wrong. But the Nazi's thought they were doing the right thing. Everyone is led to believe what they believe.
100 > 1.
Am I guaranteed that the 100 will be set free and live?
These are absurd hypotheticals, but here is the point.
I support someone dying for a good cause.
Saving 100 other innocent people is a good cause.
The 1 person I killed died for a good cause.
We give medals of honor to guys who jump on grenades for their buddies after all.
Don't we see in movies all the damn time where the bank hostage negotiator says "Take me instead! Let the hostages go and you can have me."
My question is this.
Why isn't the 1 inoocent Jew OFFERING himself as a lamb to save the other 100??
Isn't Jesus supposed to be awesome because he sacrificed himself for mankind?
Many > One. Its practically a proverb.
You Claimed that my sarcasm meant I didn't understand what was going on leading up to those wars. I was responding to that.
Ulfsaar:
"Your sarcasm tells me that you have no understanding of the decisions people made in the process that built up to the US entering WWII."
I may have been sarcastic. But I have a firm understanding of decisions that led to WW2. Maybe its you who don't understand.
Not at all. You misunderstand half the things I say.
My point being, people die for good reasons, as judged by the beliefs of the people doing the killing.
If we didn't feel we were fighting for a good cause, I doubt we would be.
Patriotism often leads to the death of many innocent lives. The only thing keeping the ship from sinking is the belief that we're on the right side of things.
We can't all refuse to point a gun.
The bad people will always threaten. It's up to good people to push back, even if it means killing someone.
"Playing God" is a cop out.
We are our own gods. We have all the power to change the world. To overthrow tyrants, to stop criminals, to promote freedom, or protect innocent lives. We have the power. We are the gods. We (as in people, not You and I) are the devils too. We subjugate, we oppress, we murder and rape.
Is curing diseases playing god? Is testing medicine on lab rats playing god? Is reseting a broken bone playing god? Is sending 100,000 boys to die fighting a crazy dictator playing god??
Nope, its "Playing responsible human being"
There's no God out there stopping violence for us, there's no god out there curing diseases for us.
We have to do the work.
I support a good cause, even if it may mean some innocent lives are lost.
I support a good cause in the face of collateral damage.
I'd be a rediculous hypocrit to support our war in Iraq, and yet be unwilling to fire a missile myself.
I agree with this.
But in the real world, Jokers exist, and Batmans don't.
Both ferry's would blow if noone acts rationally.
The ferry scenario in TDK is commendable, and awesome. I loved how that played out.
But its a movie. In real life, you better act to save lives...because no caped avenger is going to be there to save the day.
So by not pushing the button, in reality you kill everyone.
I don't live in a dreamworld were as long as I don't do something immoral, it'll all work out.
Then we must agree to disagree.
I don't believe in an objective morality. If one does exist, we have not found it yet anyways. Not one person can demonstrate that they have found the ultimate moral truth in the world.
All these moral truths are subject to the opinions of those who hold them. That makes them nonobjective.
Winners usually write the history and decide the righteousness of actions.
Can you demonstrate objective morality for me?
I am not saying it is impossible, I'd say I'm agnostic towards it's existence.
However, the existing mountain of evidence points to a subjective morality, not an objective one.
I went through this in another thread till my face was blue. I don't intend to do it again.
Yes. A GREAT DEAL of effort is taken on OUR parts (and sometimes on the parts of other militaries, combatants) to reduce innocent casualties.
They still happen, on both sides.
Have we decided to halt all agression or offense? Hell no. The fight must go on, we try to reduce innocent casualties, but the fight must go on. Despite the losses.
Absolutely.
When did I ever say I WANTED these things to happen?
Look,
This guy could die of cancer someday, or get hit by a truck someday, or just have a severe heart attack. He IS going to die. So am I, so are you.
I kill him, and wish for a world without rape and murder. I think he just died for a good cause.
I'd rather it be me, but thats not what the genie said is it?
I don't think people SHOULD die if it helps. I think if someone HAS to die if it helps, then they didn't die in vain, but for a good cause.
I've answered this before. In response to other threads or the Trolley Problem discussion.
I think it is more immoral to NOT act, as opposed to acting immorally to achieve a greater good.
I'd give myself to save lives should the situation present itself. I'm an organ donor, registered, and a BMT registered. Someday maybe someone who needs it can have my Kidney or some bone marrow or something. When I do die, hopefully people will get some value out of my body parts.
If I saw a situation with some people in danger, I'd risk myself to save them. Absolutely without hesitation.
If you had a choice between innaction that leads to self preservation, and action that leads to certain death, but the result of action is of greater value than your life...I think you should act.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
You've said exactly that.
That's not analogous to the OP. In the OP, the person you're killing hasn't committed a crime. He hasn't been given a choice. He presents no threat to anyone. Crap, he's a stranger, so you even don't know who he is.
Nothing says you have to kill him. You're not neutralizing a threat, even an unintentional one. You're choosing to violate someone's right to life. Of course you are disregarding the value of that one person.
And don't give me this sanctimonious crap. You're not doing this for any sense of morality. This isn't about anybody else. You're doing this so you can be a hero and have people give you affirmation. You even said as much.
That's a great mentality, the world's broken and people are imperfect and do lousy things, so let's disregard all incentive to make the world better or put any responsibility on ourselves to act morally.
In this mindset, you don't have to believe in anything, you need not sacrifice anything, you can just sit in a corner and do nothing and talk **** about the people actually taking risks while thinking of people other than themselves. Zero chance of you getting hurt, you can act self-righteous and proud of yourself all day long, and no one will call you out on your self-centeredness because they're off actually doing the work it takes to build a better world.
Nothing about that is erroneous.
So what someone believes is automatically right?
I believe God exists. You seem to want to tell me that's wrong any chance you get. Is it subjective or objective based on what you feel benefits you most in a given time?
Because they sacrificed their lives instead of murdering strangers.
The guys who jump on grenades do so out of respect for the lives of those whom they are saving. They do so out of integrity and respect for the integrity of others, and out of the willingness to risk everything for what is right.
What about the guy who murders a man in cold blood to appease a sadistic regime and to perpetuate the oppression of the Nazi party? What's he risking in all of this?
You would criticize the Jew without asking the broader question about why the **** the Nazis would perform the Holocaust in the first place and why anyone would knowingly go along with their plans?
Which is the justification you're using to not push back at all and instead go right along with what the Nazis want.
The work of making a better world? I thought the world was crap and thus there is no responsibility for you to do so?
You can't argue that you, based on the brokenness of the world, have no incentive of behaving morally or ideally and then make some kind of compelling speech about the importance of the individual to adhere to ideals. That's inherently contradictory.
Or we could go with the honest assessment of the situation: it's easier to cave into the Nazis demands than to oppose them. The latter would be difficult and scary and involve taking great personal risks for the hope of a brighter world. It's a lot easier to just give them what they want and pretend you're not actually helping them out and perpetuating their oppression.
The topic of conversation is your choice to murder a guy. You are choosing to murder someone. So you clearly wanted that to happen.
No, he will never die of any of those things. You murdered him. And claiming he was going to die anyway therefore it doesn't really matter doesn't absolve you of committing murder, and it definitely doesn't demonstrate any kind of respect for the value of a single life. There's saying you respect and value things and then there's actually respecting and valuing them.
I feel this Nazi situation isnt being taken as it should. Everyone is arguing these loopholes about what could happen or would happen when the real questions are do you feel killing 1 person to save 100 is ethical? Do you feel taking a non-action in an ethical event makes you responsible?
I feel both of these questions are simple. All things being equal and the only option you have is to kill 1 person to save 100, you should. By not killing 1 person, you are essentially killing 100 even though you take no action. If you take no action in a general sense, watching a child drowned in a pool or a man bleeding out and letting them die would not make you responsible in the same sense as not killing that 1 person. The only way around this is that there is a threshold as to when action should be taken and this threshold is compared to the outcomes of the situation. This is, in essence, utilitarianism.
Granted, I understand the gut reaction to having the kill an innocent person so save 100. Its a gut feeling for a good reason! Having respect for humans is a good thing in our society. However, if I had the option to kill 1 person to save 100 (all things being equal) I would, because me not means I killed 99 more people.
On the issue of killing for money, a resounding no. Since the fact that that money would save more than one life is not necessarily certain, if it was certain than making the outcome a monetary reward is irrelevant.
(is the genies wish going to grant truely anything aside from the mentioned exclussions?)
second situation, its a freaken genie, that activation cost of the wish does suck for someone but its probably worth it if your gunna consider doing it.
3rd situation sounds similar to the 2nd, you get a "wish for anything" i can't see my responses being all that different. though you do put conditions how the kill must be made.
Twitter- RogueSource.
Decks: "Name one! I probably got it built In one of these boxes."
---------------------------------------------------
Vintage will rise again! Buy a Mox today!
---------------------------------------------------
[I]Some call it dig through time, when really your digging through CRAP!
Merfolk! showing magic players what a shower is since Lorwyn!
The Nazi example is about whether you "play ball" with evil, or ultimately say "NO".
If EVERYBODY "plays ball", nothing ever changes.
If EVERYBODY refuses, then the Nazis eventually can't play that kind of coercion. Their murders are not guided by deterministic PHYSICS. They are guided by their INTIMIDATION and WILL.
Consequentialists, in trying the weigh the "big picture" (colloquially known as "playing God" ), are missing the bigger picture that the bad guys can be forced to change too.
Consequentialists are collaborators, embolden the evil, and by compromising to take the 'best course" eventually all get gassed. Deontologists in the long run, can make a change by adamantly sticking to their "**** you", and either turn some Nazis, or take some Nazis with them.
A Nazi and sees a consequentialist, he sees a tool he can bend to his every will.
A Nazi and see a deontologist, he may have to respect him, or compromise.
Choosing which boat from a hurricane is different from killing complying with an evil person's threat.
-
As another note:
What do you think "WE DON'T NEGOTIATE WITH TERRORISTS" is about? Some might argue its consequentialism, because negotiation might theoretically encourage more terrorism... but really it is more deontological. If a terrorist said he'd blow up a schoolbus full of kids, unless we EXECUTED a specific janitor, would we even CONSIDER it?
I've only ever implied that Many > 1
If I mispoke and ACTUALLY said "1 doesn't matter" then I apologize. My intent is only to say that Many > 1.
It wasn't supposed to be.
It was an entirely different hypothetical situation.
Question: Is the rest of the population not getting infected worth bombing one small town?
I say yes.
"Freedom" and "Democracy" have historically been worth killing THOUSANDS of people, from the days when we were swinging swords, to the days when we were bombing many towns, and even large metropolises.
(and I agree that it is worth it)
I believe that if Freedom and Democracy are worth the lives of others because they are good causes...then there are other things that are also worth the lives of others.
Like say, a wish to cure cancer, or a wish to eliminate war and poverty.
True. I never said he deserved to die. Only that when he does, he would be dying for a good cause...or you know, he could grow old and die of kidney failure or something.
His awareness of the fact he died for a good cause is irrelevant.
If I could do it in secret I would. I said that before.
However, in one of the OP's scenarios, we are specifically KNOWN to have done what we did.
If people are going to KNOW I did this...then maybe, just maybe, I can turn from "cold blooded mercenary! booo! booo!" into "Well, he did end poverty and war, and improve the lives of millions"
Get the point?
No its not a great mentality. But it is one that actually represents reality.
Go ahead, keep your morals while 100 people die.
I am not even going to judge you. You may be right about everything.
However, if I knew for certain I could save a hundred by killing one, I'd take the offer.
This decision is made ALL THE TIME. EVERYDAY.
We have fought wars, and killed thousands in order to obtain what we believe to be the best result.
I find it a strange moral compass to dispise the killing of 1 innocent person for a good cause, and throw a ticker-tape parade for the killing of many innocent people for a good cause. And if you don't think that many innocent people have been blown up, or shot, or burned to death in our pursuits of these good causes, you're blind to reality.
"But we didn't intend for the innocents to die, IcecreamMan! And we try very hard to make sure we reduce the number of innocents that do!"
Whose rationalizing now?
Just because I don't believe in an Objective morality, doesn't mean I don't HAVE A MORALITY.
I share much of the morality I have been conditioned and raised to agree with.
I am an American, and a freedom loving capitalist. But I am also a little conservative leaning on some things, and extremely hard on crime.
I don't believe that morality is objective. This doesn't mean I am not willing to fight for, and support the SUBjective morality that I believe in.
This is the simple truth.
The Nazi's had to die, and had to be stopped because we believe they were absolutely wrong and evil.
All morality is based on belief. Beliefs shaped by experience, environment, upbringing, and conditioning.
Prove that morality is objective. I'll wait.
To them maybe, to me maybe not.
You believe God exists. To you, its right. To me, not so much.
Subjective.
Yes, I tell you you're wrong. Yes, I tell you that I don't believe you.
I can't PROVE it though. < ---- See that, thats called reality.
Gods existence is an objective, Yes/No black and white problem.
He either DOES, or he DOES NOT.
You believe he does. Great. I don't. Neither of us is capable of proving to the other that our side is objectively true.
We can sit here ALL DAY, all year even and talk about how the Nazi's were evil, and wrong, and what they did was horrible and beyond any reasonable justification.
But they DID justify it. They DID believe in it.
But just like many people sit in America and protest the war in Iraq, or other things our government does. The DOING get DONE anyways.
Who is right? The protestors? The supporters?
I agree.
What are you willing to risk to do what you believe is right?
I'm willing to risk everything up to and including personal immorality.
Are we still talking about the 1jew vs. 100jews??
If so, he is risking his own conscience wellbeing for 100 lives.
If we are talking about real life, and not wish granting genies, or trustworthy Nazi officers...then it's stupid.
In real life, in Germany, I would NOT have killed the ONE innocent Jew.
I'm not stupid. In real life, the 100 would just be killed later, or sent to a different camp, or even if released, recaptured, or the Nazi would just be flat out lying to me in order to see what i would do.
In real life, I wouldn't TRUST the Nazi officer to actually let the 100 others live and go free.
The whole point of the hypothetical is that you are guaranteed to get the positive result. Without that guarantee, then it changes the game entirely.
I am not out there killing people right now, OR throwing myself into volcanoes, because in real life, there is no 100billion, there is no wish, there is no benefit.
I don't need to ask that question. The Holocaust HAPPENED. The DEED was DONE. You can't undo it.
So then, in a hypothetical, I ask why one of the jews in the group to be killed, offer himself? Instead of me (Who am I in this anyways? Am I a German Citizen? Am I another Jew? Am I a new Nazi recruit right out of boot camp?) being presented with the option to kill 1 to save 100?
If I'm a German citizen, maybe I save noone because I am already brainwashed and see the jews as less than human.
If I'm another Jew, maybe I do it out of fear that if I don't shot the 1, I'll be shot and the 100 will die anyways.
If I'm a fresh Nazi grunt, maybe I question the officer why we would let ANY of them go? Or maybe I refuse to shoot the 1 because it could have been a test to see if I was a jewish sympathizer.
The real answer is:
I'm sure many of them (jewish captives, and maybe a few german citizens and nazi grunts) actually DID try. To save their families, or their friends, or their former neighbors. Some of the ones who tried this sacrifice, were probably just shot, or herded into a traincar, or laughed at and told to bug off.
Many (jewish captives) were probably so emotionally and mentally overwhelmed they just did what the uniforms told them to do, hoping that they'd make it out of this whole thing alive.
Laughable response.
I'm not going along with them.
I'm trying to save the MOST jews I can, even at the cost of my own moral conscience.
Read above.
Also...maybe when I do shoot the 1 to save 100...I get shot myself for being a sympathizer.
But if I had the guarantee that 100 other jews would be set free and live (as opposed to the reality that they would die anyways or just be recaptured)
I'd kill the 1 to save 100. My conscience is not worth 100 lives.
Thats not what I said at all.
Yes I believe the world IS full of crap.
I also believe good work must be done to make it LESS crappy.
We just disagree on what counts as good work.
You have very poor understanding of what I said.
I have TONS of incentive to behave morally and ideally.
The world IS broken, and I have a young son who will grow up into it.
You and I simply disagree about what counts as moral/immoral actions.
I disagree that <trying to save the most jews possible> is caving into the Nazi's.
Sure, it would have been DAMN EASY to just lay down and let 'em take over the world.
Fighting them was the harder choice. It costed thousands of lives, some of them innocent noncombatants.
But we risked these lives, and buried these people FOR THE GREATER GOOD.
Right?
What i was saying is that I didn't want the holocaust to happen. I was still refering to a different hypothetical.
But it happened, and in the midst of it happening, I'd try to save the most jews possible.
I'm not even "pro-semite", I just agree that the Nazi's (and their genocide) were wrong.
Where did I say "doesn't really matter"??
I'd rather die for a good cause, then die of a heart attack, or die of cancer, or die of kidney failure, or die 99 years old with age spots and wrinkles everywhere.
I never said I would be absolved of my crime. In fact, I said yes to option #3, even though everyone would know about my crime.
The greater good > My innocence/conscience
There's saying you respect and value things, and then there is being a moron.
There are 7 billion of us.
If I died today, 0.0000000047% of the population would care. That's even being extremely generous to myself. I bet I can add another zero after the decimal.
You have to be Princess ****ing Diana or Michael Jackson to approach or exceed even 1%.
If I could die, to improve the lives of 1% (thats 70,000,000 by the way)
I glady would. Sign me up.
If I could improve the lives of 1%, at the cost of my personal moral conviction, and 1 innocent bystander. I'd be a self righteous fool to pass.
****
I thought of something.
Opinions welcome.
Would a wish for "All human waste and garbage in the world to disappear" be a good wish?
I'm just thinking that it might save/improve the environment in such a way that it benefits all inhabitants, human and nonhuman?
Sure, we will make more, and I'm sure the wish would be a one-time deal.
But it would get all the plastic and trash out of the oceans, the landfills would be clear. All those sea turtles choked by six-pack rings.
The pollution reset button might have a much larger impact than even I understand as I'm not an ecologist.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
A consequentalist wouldn't play ball because he knew the outcome of it would be less beneficial than playing ball.
Saying that he simply would choose to play along doesn't work because his decisions are outcome based.
This isn't accurate.
Approx. 6 million jews were murdered.
With the guarantee of 100 > 1 being saved. (Obviously -1 each time)
Only approx.60,000 would have to "play ball" in order to save the other approx.5,940,000.
5,940,000 > 60,000
If everyone they make the offer to refuse.
Then all die.
They're STILL going to die. The murders happen.
But given the guarantee that 100 live at the cost of one?
Only from the inside. As in, the Nazi party would have had to fail to recruit soldiers, and fail to gain support from german citizens.
I completely agree with your point. But it didn't happen.
So when I weigh the big picture...I weigh it upon what actually happened not what could have been.
Back this up with something.
Depends on the consequentialist. Everyone has a line they draw.
Or, just shoot him.
Thats exactly why.
If we give in to terrorists, it emboldens more terrorism, and 9 times out of 10, they kill the hostages anyways, or they lied, or they make more demands, or they change the game up.
We don't negotiate because there is no TRUST in the process.
We cannot TRUST them to release all the hostages if we give them their helicopter.
We wouldn't kill the janitor, because it wouldn't actually save the school bus.
Also.
Please don't ignore the fact that in these situations, we are always buying time in order to find another solution to the problem.
We don't want to kill the janitor, but we dont want to lose the school bus either, so we work to find a way to kill the hostage taker, or solve the problem without losing EITHER the janitor or the bus.
Thanks to Xenphire @ Inkfox for the amazing new sig
“Thus strangely are our souls constructed, and by slight ligaments
are we bound to prosperity and ruin.”
― Mary Shelley, Frankenstein
The immediate problem I see with this is that we assume perfect knowledge of consequences with actions.
When this isn't reflective of reality at all. The simple truth is that people who go up against unimaginable odds out of a desire to adhere to their morals even though it's seems fruitless can very well achieve things that no one thought possible. It has happened throughout history. The Persian War was won by a minority of Greek states who stood up to the Persian Empire not thinking they would win, but out of moral stance.
Except then you're not being consequentialist anymore, because to adhere to consequentialism is about looking at what could or would happen.
Consequentialism forces you to look at the problem and deal with the consequences, which requires you to deal with the complexity of the problem. Dismissing the complexity is dismissing the actual consequences of the action. You're going against yourself.
Well that would depend on the event and the consequences, wouldn't it?
You're almost going into deontological ethics now.
Also, no, you aren't killing 100. The Nazis are killing 100.
Ok, is it more beneficial to appease the Nazis or to go against them?
See how consequences of actions get murky? It's almost as though you need a vision of what the world should be to get to where you want to go, isn't it?
Except you didn't kill them, the Nazis did. Appeasing the Nazis only means strengthening their regime. You've pretty much become one of them by killing this man.
What if it were trillions of dollars? You could pay off the national debt!
This is correct. If no one takes any risk to change the situation and instead accepts the world as it is, then the world will never change for the better.
See now you completely missed the wisdom of his point. We do not negotiate with terrorists not out of consequentialist stance, but out of a deontological (I would really respect this website more if the spellcheck didn't go nuts at this word... or at "spellcheck") stance. We don't even consider the idea of caving in to the terrorist's demands.
So we're going from a deontological stance. The fact that you're saying this results in better results means you're admitting the deontological stance is superior in this circumstance. And in fact it is.