Hypothetical Ethical Dilemma

[Dunderman]

@RexDart

Well, if that’s so then pinpoint for me the origin of my obligation to sacrifice my life for this endeavor. Tell me where it comes from, with specificity. What causes it to arise? Why does it arise, and from what conditions?

The “evil” we know exists is physical and mental pain. The “good” we know exists is physical and mental pleasure. Therefore, it is morally right to maximize pleasure and morally wrong to maximize pain.
[/quote]

Then tell me the math on this. Is there a set number of schoolchildren below which it’s not required for me to sacrifice my life? What if it’s only one kid? What if the kid has terminal cancer and will be dead in a few months anyways, but I would otherwise live for decades? What if the terrorist is only threatening to maim the children?

There are no set numbers. Each situation has to be evalued according to its own merits. As for the dying kid, well, that depends on how much worse his family and friends will feel if he’s killed by the terrorist instead of by cancer, and how bad your family and friends will feel if you die. As for maiming, that could possibly cause more pain than killing, so I’d say we’re still on the sacrifice side.

I simply do not see how an obligation can arise that morally binds me when I myself was not a proximate cause of the situation in question.

I cannot see how moral obligation is affected in the slightest by who caused the situation. The only reasons people should take responsibility for their own actions are a) the world would be a better place if everyone did and b) they learn to not do actions with bad consequences.

Nor do I accept that by declining to sacrifice myself I would have “caused” those deaths. The terrorist who kills them will have caused the deaths. He acted, I merely chose not to act. If you can’t make that distinction, then go join Peter Singer in selling off all of your goods that rise above the barest subsistence and give it all to the poor, because clearly your omission of that potential act is murdering starving African children. That’s where your argument eventually leads. It seems absurd, but I can’t find a threshold at which to draw the line once you start down that road.

I am giving money to African children via Unicef. I’m also donating to some other charities. Since I’m a student, there’s not a lot of money to give. I am keeping some for myself, because my happiness is important too. I’m no less important than anyone else.

Myself, I feel perfectly fine in a moral sense denying the existence of all involuntary positive obligations. If it came down to my life, I guarantee you I wouldn’t sacrifice it for anything. I wouldn’t sacrifice my own life to save the lives of a billion people, because I’m under no obligation to do so. I feel just fine with that because I don’t see any logical reason why I should sacrifice my total existence.

I don’t understand how you can value continued existence for you, which should have no value beyond an instinct to survive, over the very real and definitely concrete fact of pain, grief, misery and anguish for uncountable people. Would you happily kill a billion people to save your own life? It’s essentially the same question: you have two choices, one leads to you surviving and a billion dying, the other to you dying and a billion living.

[IWLN]

I would without a doubt sacrifice my life for 100 and probably even for one. My reputation would not matter, as those that I love would believe what they already know to be true about me. But, Priceguy, I do disagree with your opinion. What I perceive to be a moral choice for myself, I don’t believe applies to Rex and I would not expect it to. My actions would be guided by how I would feel if I didn’t save these people. I would feel guilty and reponsible for not taking action. Honestly since I have never died before, I’m pretty sure I would go in hoping that I wouldn’t this time, rather than being certain I would. Everyone is different and not everyone is capable of that kind of sacrifice. I don’t believe that makes them better or worse than I am. Making a value judgment, when it comes to possibly losing my life is something only I can do for myself. I can’t decide if you should do what I would do. If to you, your life is worth more than other people’s, then that’s your choice. This type of “moral obligation” comes from a perceived value of life. The awareness of it has to do with the value we feel our own life has. Mine, I don’t believe is as important as those 100. I’m not sure how you can say to someone else, that they’re obligated to die, so these other people can live.

Also, I can firmly say what I would do and what I think I should do, but we don’t know for sure if that would really happen when faced with the reality of a situation. . Some of us who believe strongly that saving them is right, would instinctively run in the opposite direction and some who claim they wouldn’t make such a sacrifice, do. We’re not that predictable.

[Dunderman]

@IWLN

I would without a doubt sacrifice my life for 100 and probably even for one. My reputation would not matter, as those that I love would believe what they already know to be true about me. But, Priceguy, I do disagree with your opinion. What I perceive to be a moral choice for myself, I don’t believe applies to Rex and I would not expect it to. My actions would be guided by how I would feel if I didn’t save these people. I would feel guilty and reponsible for not taking action.

So it’s all egotism? You’d sacrifice yourself because you’d feel guilty if you didn’t?

I’m not sure how you can say to someone else, that they’re obligated to die, so these other people can live.

Why shouldn’t I? Why is another single life more important than mine, just because I don’t own it?

Also, I can firmly say what I would do and what I think I should do, but we don’t know for sure if that would really happen when faced with the reality of a situation. . Some of us who believe strongly that saving them is right, would instinctively run in the opposite direction and some who claim they wouldn’t make such a sacrifice, do. We’re not that predictable.

Oh no. I admitted that in my first post. This is all hypothetical. I also have fear, an instinct to survive, and so on.

[Who_me_1]

@Priceguy

The nonpayer isn’t legally responsible, of course, but still made a choice that resulted in a person’s death.

Maybe… but still he had nothing to do with whether that person lived or died, the choice not to pay did not cause that person to die, it was the kidnappers decision to do the killing. The kidnapper had the choice whether to kill his victim or to let his victim live. The kidnapper is the only one with any responibility in the death… legally and morally.

To go a bit further on the OP. If someone took 100 schoolkids hostage and said that they would kill them, either all at once or one at a time… whatever, unless I turned myself over to him to be killed… I hope the police have a good S.W.A.T program, because I ain’t going anywhere. Now, of course, this would be different if he had a child of mine or another person I cared enough to die for.

And I would have no problem sleeping at night at all… No one can make me responsible for their actions.

[IWLN]

@Priceguy

So it’s all egotism? You’d sacrifice yourself because you’d feel guilty if you didn’t?

No, it’s not ego related. Unless you would count shame and humility as part of that. I said my actions would be guided by how I would feel after, but the driving force at the time would be compassion, sympathy and my overwhelming desire to right or to prevent wrongs. Lame, I know, but still true. I’m a sucker for a sad story. Need a kidney? I have a spare. Also, I’ve had an awesome life and the idea of it ending doesn’t cause me a lot of angst.

Why shouldn’t I? Why is another single life more important than mine, just because I don’t own it?

I’d sure like to bring this thought into another thread we’re both on. Because you can only sacrifice yourself. His life may not be more important to you, but it is to him. Maybe he’s right and you’re wrong. Not your call. You can’t give away what’s not yours to give.

Oh no. I admitted that in my first post. This is all hypothetical. I also have fear, an instinct to survive, and so on.

This one wasn’t aimed at you. My fear and instinct for survival was tested once and I came through, but I have more fear now because of it and I’m older; so don’t know if I would react the same. I was just trying to be honest, even though noble would be more satisfying.

[Dunderman]

@IWLN

No, it’s not ego related.

“Egotism” means “selfishness”. It doesn’t have anything to do with ego apart from sharing the same ethymological root.

I’d sure like to bring this thought into another thread we’re both on.

Feel free.

Because you can only sacrifice yourself. His life may not be more important to you, but it is to him. Maybe he’s right and you’re wrong. Not your call. You can’t give away what’s not yours to give.

Why not? If I ever have to choose between killing RexDart or killing a hundred kids, then RexDart had better get cosy with the notion of infinity. To do anything else would be utterly assholicious. I’d expect him to do the same.

@Who_me?

Maybe… but still he had nothing to do with whether that person lived or died, the choice not to pay did not cause that person to die

Yes it did. Provided the person would have lived if he had paid (and that is, of course impossible to know in real life, that’s why this is a hypothetical), he caused that person’s death.

it was the kidnappers decision to do the killing. The kidnapper had the choice whether to kill his victim or to let his victim live. The kidnapper is the only one with any responibility in the death… legally and morally.

No. Anyone who causes a death has caused a death. What’s the confusion here?

To go a bit further on the OP. If someone took 100 schoolkids hostage and said that they would kill them, either all at once or one at a time… whatever, unless I turned myself over to him to be killed… I hope the police have a good S.W.A.T program, because I ain’t going anywhere. Now, of course, this would be different if he had a child of mine or another person I cared enough to die for.

And I would have no problem sleeping at night at all… No one can make me responsible for their actions.

I’m sorry to say this, but you’re a total egotist. You value your personal comfort and the comfort of people close to you (probably because they affect you directly) over the personal comfort of others. This attitude is egotistical and leads to very unsavory results… in this case 100 kids dying because of you, causing untold grief to their parents, friends and relatives, just to save a comparably very small group from grief.

[BIH_Boy]

My answer is simple.
No.
I wouldn’t sacrifice myself for anyone that wasn’t family.

[Who_me_1]

[QUOTE=Priceguy

I’m sorry to say this, but you’re a total egotist. You value your personal comfort and the comfort of people close to you (probably because they affect you directly) over the personal comfort of others. This attitude is egotistical and leads to very unsavory results… in this case 100 kids dying because of you, causing untold grief to their parents, friends and relatives, just to save a comparably very small group from grief.[/QUOTE]

No, sorry. I believe you’re wrong, so wrong in fact that I believe there is no further sense in posting here… although I will if you’d like me too. If you want to believe that you are responsible for other people’s actions… I guess that is your priviledge. My name is Who_me? and I am responsible for my own actions. If I decide to get a gun and hold someone for ransom and kill that person if that ramsom is not paid… then it is me that has to take responsibility. If someone else does it, then they have to take that responsibility for themselves. Sorry, trying to blame someone else for your actions is a cowardly lie and has no effect on my responsibilities.

Calling me an egoist? I don’t know… maybe. But of course, maybe the end of my existance is more important to me than taking responsibilty for another’s actions. The person who made the decision not to pay a ransom has nothing to do with the victim’s death. The decision rest wholly in the hands of the kidnapper. He made the decision to take the person, he made the decision to hold the person, and he makes the decision to kill the person. He can try to set the responsibility on someone else, but that is a lie and an impossibility. He holds sole responsibility for his actions.

For the 100 kid scenario? Same deal. If I refuse to give up my life because someone tries to set the responsibility on me, so what? Just because a murderer (or impending murderer) says I have a duty to save the kids, does not make it so. It’s his hand holding the gun or the fuse, not mine. I have no responsibility to surrender the last of my existance just to save children that he is threatening.

As I said before, if it is a question of risking my life… that is a totally different scenario. A building is on fire, kids are trapped… will I go in to try to save them? Quite likely, since this is something I have training in. A man is holding a hostage, he threatens to kill the hostage. Will I attempt to save the hostage? Maybe… if the police are not there and there is an impending threat of death to the hostage if something is not done quickly.

I’m sorry for not being able to accept your world-view. But I believe in personal responsibility. My name is not God, Jehovah, Yaweh, Allah, Zeus, or any other gods’ name. I have responsibility for what I do, not for what others do. Nothing can change that.

[Dunderman]

Who_me?, you’re still in the wrong belief that I’m trying to hold you responsible for someone else’s actions. I’m not. I’m only trying to hold you responsible for your own, and if you cause a death, then you did and that’s it. It doesn’t matter if it’s by action or inaction. If you see a blind man walking towards a ravine and don’t stop him, you caused his death. It’s the same with the kids. You can choose the option with the least pain or the option with the most pain. One is morally right, the other morally wrong.

You say you believe in no gods. Well then, you have no reason not to make the rational choice in every situation. And the rational choice, I hope we agree, is to minimize pain.

[Who_me_1]

I never said that I don’t believe in gods… I just don’t believe that I am a god.

As I said, your world-view is totally alien to me. Asking me to walk up to a kidnapper, to let him kill me, to save 100 kids is ridiculous. Sorry, if this ever happens to me, I won’t even have a second thought about whether I made the correct decision. Not giving up my life has has nothing to do with whether the kids live or die, that decision rest in the hands of whoever is threatening them. My decision caused nothing. If I gave up my life, that decision would cause nothing. Because whether I did one or the other, the decision would still be in the hands of the terrorist and he could decide to shoot them right after he shot me. My decision has no effect.

[Dunderman]

Well, that’s why this is a hypothetical. In real life, of course, you’d never know. So let’s keep this hypothetical, since we’re discussing the principle.

You have two actions to choose from. One causes your death, the other the deaths of 100 kids. You cannot in any way argue that the first action is better, without introducing some serious mitigating circumstances. Failing to choose it is pure egotism, a moral system with very unpleasant consequences.

[Ramanujan]

@Priceguy

Who_me?, you’re still in the wrong belief that I’m trying to hold you responsible for someone else’s actions. I’m not. I’m only trying to hold you responsible for your own, and if you cause a death, then you did and that’s it

this, i believe is irrelevant.

One is morally right, the other morally wrong.

i also believe it is not so cut and dried as you make it out to be.

You say you believe in no gods. Well then, you have no reason not to make the rational choice in every situation. And the rational choice, I hope we agree, is to minimize pain.

i would agree that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is an admirable basis for a moral position. i would not agree, however, that maximizing others’ pleasure or minimizing others’ pain is necessarily relevant at all. you seem to be operating from a utilitarian perspective. to me, utilitarianism makes no sense as a rational moral system. mine is the only pain or pleasure i can feel, so i’ll do my best to maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.

so it’s simple really, if i will feel better dying and letting 100 children live, then i will die. since i won’t feel anything if i die, the choice is based on whether having let 100 children die would cause me more pain than would be outweighed by the pleasure of living. for me the answer is no. i would let the children die. provided these are all strangers. introducing relatives or friends complicates it a bit.

[Who_me_1]

Okay, let’s see… a possible scenario where it would be my decision, my responsibility to decide who lives and who dies…

Alright, I’m in a car. The brakes fail and the accelerator sticks. It’s a mountain road with cliffs on both sides. I’m doing… say… 70 mph. There are 100 schoolkids standing in the road. I can’t stop, I can’t miss them without going over the edge.

In this case the car goes over the edge.
Is that good enough? In this scenario it *would be *my decision and my responsibility where in the other it wouldn’t.

[Dunderman]

@Ramanujan

i would agree that maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is an admirable basis for a moral position. i would not agree, however, that maximizing others’ pleasure or minimizing others’ pain is necessarily relevant at all. you seem to be operating from a utilitarian perspective. to me, utilitarianism makes no sense as a rational moral system. mine is the only pain or pleasure i can feel, so i’ll do my best to maximize my pleasure and minimize my pain.

Then you are an utter, total, admitted egotist. You will, apparently, happily rape, kill, steal, rob, torture and kidnap, as long as you get away with it. That attitude leads to a worse world than my attitude, so I don’t follow it.

[Ramanujan]

@Priceguy

Then you are an utter, total, admitted egotist.

i’m not sure “egotist” is the word you’re looking for. but if you can demonstrate for me that you are not an “egotist”, i would love to see it. show me where you have once made a decision that was either a) not 100% selfish, or b) not completely arbitrary.

You will, apparently, happily rape, kill, steal, rob, torture and kidnap, as long as you get away with it. That attitude leads to a worse world than my attitude, so I don’t follow it.

that is a completely unthought-out response to my position. i would happily rape, kill, steal, rob, torture, and kidnap if it made me happy. it doesn’t. why does no one ever get that?

[IWLN]

@Priceguy

“Egotism” means “selfishness”. It doesn’t have anything to do with ego apart from sharing the same ethymological root.

Okay, new definition, thanks. Since any action I take, even an unselfish one is based on my feelings and desires, then I am an egotist and so are you. But since my main motive is to spare 100 families grief and I consider their lives to be more important than mine, then my egotism is at a healthy level. If my inaction caused them to die, even though I didn’t cause the initial situation; I would consider myself 100% responsible.

Why not? If I ever have to choose between killing RexDart or killing a hundred kids, then RexDart had better get cosy with the notion of infinity. To do anything else would be utterly assholicious. I’d expect him to do the same.

I agree with the first part. That would be my decision to save one or 100. Rex would lose. As far as expecting him to do the same, I would hope he would choose to save the 100 over me. But as far as sacrificing himself, I still disagree with you. I suppose you’re free to have an opinion on whether or not he is wrong for not sacrificing himself and you can certainly expect him to do what you think is right. He is not required to live up to your expectations. You can’t guide his mind, his actions or be his conscience. It’s actually none of your business and you know nothing about his personal reasons or his life. He may be one step away from a cure for cancer. He may fear death more than remorse. He may feel like it’s wrong to sacrifice his family’s happiness for the happiness of strangers. You may have an opinion about what he should do, but it is certainly not an informed one. Your opinion without fact is emotional, not rational.

[Dunderman]

@Ramanujan

i’m not sure “egotist” is the word you’re looking for. but if you can demonstrate for me that you are not an “egotist”, i would love to see it. show me where you have once made a decision that was either a) not 100% selfish, or b) not completely arbitrary.

I stopped eating pork even though I like it since domestic pigs are often kept under horrible conditions. To avoid supporting that industry and thus indirectly causing pigs pain, I stopped eating pork.

that is a completely unthought-out response to my position. i would happily rape, kill, steal, rob, torture, and kidnap if it made me happy. it doesn’t. why does no one ever get that?

So there’s nothing morally wrong with those actions provided the person who does them likes it?

[Dunderman]

@IWLN

Okay, new definition, thanks. Since any action I take, even an unselfish one is based on my feelings and desires, then I am an egotist and so are you.

I disagree. Why do I give money to charities? It doesn’t give me any satisfaction; in fact I am sorely tempted to stop doing it since I have very little money these days. I don’t, though.

But since my main motive is to spare 100 families grief and I consider their lives to be more important than mine, then my egotism is at a healthy level. If my inaction caused them to die, even though I didn’t cause the initial situation; I would consider myself 100% responsible.

Then we agree.

I agree with the first part. That would be my decision to save one or 100. Rex would lose. As far as expecting him to do the same, I would hope he would choose to save the 100 over me. But as far as sacrificing himself, I still disagree with you. I suppose you’re free to have an opinion on whether or not he is wrong for not sacrificing himself and you can certainly expect him to do what you think is right. He is not required to live up to your expectations.

Why not? If you can’t require anyone to do what is morally right, how can you defend putting killers in jail?

You can’t guide his mind, his actions or be his conscience. It’s actually none of your business and you know nothing about his personal reasons or his life. He may be one step away from a cure for cancer.

That would be one of those seriously mitigating circumstances I mentioned. In that case it would be morally right not to sacrifice himself.

He may fear death more than remorse. He may feel like it’s wrong to sacrifice his family’s happiness for the happiness of strangers. You may have an opinion about what he should do, but it is certainly not an informed one. Your opinion without fact is emotional, not rational.

It’s perfectly rational. If he “feels” its wrong to sacrifice his family’s happiness for the happiness of strangers, that is irrational.

[IWLN]

@Priceguy

I disagree. Why do I give money to charities? It doesn’t give me any satisfaction; in fact I am sorely tempted to stop doing it since I have very little money these days. I don’t, though.

You probably give for the same reason’s I do. I will admit that it is in part about self. I live in a world that has hunger and disease and I would like to see the world I live in not be so harsh. I have no right to have a full stomach and not care if someone is hungry. An accident of birth doesn’t entitle me to everything while others have nothing. There are lots of emotional and logical reasons to help other people. But never would I deny that doing something I feel is right, doesn’t give me something back. It’s not the logical reason I do it, but it still exists. You can’t do any act of kindness without some consideration of how it affects you.

Then we agree.

Completely. But by choice.

Why not? If you can’t require anyone to do what is morally right, how can you defend putting killers in jail?

Well honestly, I’d like to require it; but then we get into that gray area where what is moral to one person is not a concept another holds. There would have to be laws that forbid inaction or failure to act. There already are to some small degree, i.e. I see a crime, I am required to report it, etc. But with no laws on the books requiring self-sacrifice, it remains a personal choice. Who’s morals would we use to decide what is morally right?

That would be one of those seriously mitigating circumstances I mentioned. In that case it would be morally right not to sacrifice himself.

Again, who’s morals and who’s judgment. Would he have to justify it? To who? Some people’s morals only prohibit them from actively adding to the world’s problem/pain and other’s morals require them to try and do something about it.

It’s perfectly rational. If he “feels” its wrong to sacrifice his family’s happiness for the happiness of strangers, that is irrational.

Okay, your opinion is rational, just not practical. You’re expecting everyone to share your values and ideas of how the world should be and they don’t.

[ZebraShaSha]

Can I challenge the head terrorist to a duel?

I would love to be in a deathmatch with the terrorist…
Choice of weapon?

Sticks. Very long sticks…