Sorry, I forgot to mention that I had a point.
If you are a Christian and you will think that you will be going to a better place, is that not like sacraficing yourself to God, which is of course seen barbaric by Christians?
Why not allow the terrorist to take your bleeding heart…
if there is a clear line, between sacrificing my one life for the lives of 100 strangers, with no possibility of reinforcements for me, or the terrorist giving up, or the children themselves rising up against him and kicking his ass, I probably would not do it. but if there was a grey area, where for example I could RISK my life for the POSSIBILITY of saving them, I might, depending on the probabilities involved. If I could save 50 of them by risking my life, or save all of them by losing it, I would risk my life and save fifty.
I would want to make a distinction between two possible cases here.
Case A: Evil Terrorist gives me the choice of saving either the lives of 100 schoolchildren or the life of one SDMB poster from this thread. Kids on one side, single doper on the other. I simply pick one side or the other, and that one is saved. If I pick neither, he will kill both. By my ethical view, my decision to save one group does not make me morally culpable for the death of the other.
In that case, I would most likely pick to save the 100 kids. Action in this case carries a possible great benefit, and does not put me at risk, so if I don’t really know the individual, I’d choose to save the 100 kids. If the one person were, however, my wife or my own child, or a relative, or a close friend, I would save the individual.
Case B: Evil Terrorist gives me the choice of killing either the 100 kids or the individual SDMB poster. I simply pick one side or the other, and then take a gun and shoot that side, and he will release the other side. If I pick neither, he will kill both. By my ethical view, my decision to shoot one side or the other does leave me morally culpable for the death of the person(s) I may decide to shoot.
In this case, I would choose not to play the game. I would not shoot either group. This would result in the deaths of the most possible victims, but that would be on the terrorist’s hands. My direct personal action to kill (in any case other than self-defense) cannot be excused, no matter the consequences of my failure to kill. No consequences can justify my initiation of force to deprive another of his/her/their life. That decision would hold for me regardless of who the individual is.
That’s where I stand on moral issues. The main differences between me and Priceguy are that A) I’m not a consequentialist, and he is, and B) I draw a distinction between acts and omissions, he does not.
Sacrificing one’s life for others won’t get a Christian to Heaven, so it would be a waste to do so purely from that motive.
I’m not talking about laws. This isn’t a legal discussion. I’ve already admitted that laws are necessarily rule-based rather than situation-based.
That’s no excuse. If I say “my morals compel me to kill and rape”, I don’t expect you to say “that’s fine dear, run along and kill and rape”.
No justification needed, to no person. There’s no Grand Court of Morally Right or Wrong.
Not expecting, desiring.
This makes no sense. In one case, you choose the option that causes the least pain, in the other, the one that causes the most, the basis for the difference being a detail. I can understand emotionally being unable to shoot, but to sit down and rationally say that you wouldn’t… no sense.
I am? “The view that the value of an action derives solely from the value of its consequences.” Cool. I didn’t know that word. Yes I am. Why aren’t you? What other values are there?
Correct, I don’t. Why do you? What’s the point?
You asked why you can’t require it. It’s not practical. There’s no way to make it happen.
That’s because there are laws against it. There is no other way to force someone to be moral.
So what you’re saying is that it’s wrong, it shouldn’t happen that way, end of story?
Me too, for all the good it does.
This is only looking at the cause or who to blame. Shouldn’t the outcome have more importance than the catalyst?
sorry for my absence from this thread, i forgot all about it.
and that wasn’t selfish? you had no desire to lessen the pain of the pigs? that wasn’t what you wanted?
if not, why did you do it?
as with anything, it depends on whom you ask.
the person who did the actions and feels no regret about them believes he or she did the right thing. that’s not to say a person looking at him or her can’t feel that he or she did the wrong thing. it’s all relative, you see.
Of course it was. You’re saying that to fit your definition of nonselfish I have to do something that causes absolutely no good for anyone? A totally pointless or even evil action?
I’m asking you, not a rapist. Is rape morally wrong? Do you think it should be prevented? Do you think it should be illegal? Why?
You’re still talking about laws. You said that I can’t require other people to do the right thing. Yes I can. They have no excuse nor reason to do wrong, just like me. That I cannot actually go over, hold a gun to RexDart’s head and force him to sacrifice himself for the 100 kids doesn’t mean I cannot say and believe he should do it.
Yep, pretty much. Everyone agrees that pleasure is good and pain is bad. Maximizing pleasure and minimizing pain is therefore what everyone should do. I really don’t see the problem.
Like the poster you were responding to, I wouldn’t face certain death to avoid the death of 100 unknown children.
Perhaps it’s morally wrong. But now, I’ve a question for those people who stated they would be willing to die. Right now, most of us could save thousands of children’s lives, prevent the grief of as many families, etc…without losing our life. Just for instance by selling everything we own and using the money to feed starving children or buy basic drugs for ill children in third world countries (If you don’t trust NGO, governments or other people, you can certainly find a way to go there and buy/hand out the food/drugs yourself. And just giving some money to charities doesn’t count, since you could save thousands of other children by selling, say, your house.
Now, ** Priceguy ** assuming that you do not intend to actually sell your stuff to feed the hungry (which I suspect is very likely) : how could you condemn as moraly bankrupt someone who wouldn’t be willing to give up his life to save 100 children (in a very hypothetical situation) while you aren’t willing to give up simply your money to do the same (in a very real situation)?
Nope you’re right. It’s just that when I require something, I usually take some sort of action if the requirement is not met. I might expect, hope or believe, but require indicates authority you don’t have.
I agree. The problem is everyone doesn’t care about OTHER people’s pleasure and pain, only their own.
Then you’ve misinterpreted me. I never said I have the ability to enforce my moral code. I just don’t see why I can’t tell someone he’s an amoral asshole, just because I can’t force him to be a moral little darling.
Absolutely. RexDart and (especially) Ramanujan being cases in point.
No, I finally understood it, just felt like the wording was off. You can tell anyone you want, what you think, but it doesn’t serve any purpose. Oh wait, if it gives you pleasure; that’s good enough.
Naw, you’re alone on this one Priceguy. I might think they should do it, explain why they should do it; but that’s as far as it can go for me. Oh unless I try to make it a law. Besides wanting to always fix things, I still have that “*there’s a little bit of good to be found in everyone” * thing going for me. If they don’t do what I know is right, I’ll make a few excuses for them, forgive them if I need to and then find some good quality they possess. I would make a hopless Judge.
But once again, how can you at the same time think someone is an amoral asshole because he’s reluctant to give up his life to save unknown to him hypotheticalchildren, and being yourself reluctant to give up everything you own to save the life of unknown to you real children? Except if you believe you’re an amoral asshole too, that is.
And beside, I tend not to take the word of people when it comes to the course of action they would choose in hypothetical life-threatening situation. My opinion is that most people have no way to know how they would actually react when really facing such a situation. Many “armchair heros” would probably switch to “coward” mode, and the reverse might be true too. Only once people have actualy rushed into a burning building to save someone, have actually fought in a war, etc…I begin to believe them.
I was going to answer your other post on this earlier, but didn’t see it as particularly relevant. One thing I can tell you is Priceguy’s a student, so everything he owns isn’t going to do much. Better for him to finish his education and provide a bigger amount than he does now. As for myself, we do more good giving as we do now on a regular monthly basis, directly to the source. Selling everything, which isn’t that much and going over “there” to help, would cut off the income source and wouldn’t help as much as money. We gave away this last Christmas. My conscience is clear. I do agree with Priceguy on the amoral part in principle. I was just trying to be nicer about it.
This one was addressed earlier. We agreed that until tested by an event that could cost you your life, you might not know. I’ve been in such an event, but I admit Idon’t know if I could do it again. This was about a hypothetical situation, so we can only state what we believe we would do.
well, i didn’t say nonselfish. if you want to be a nonselfish person, your motivations are still 100% selfish. i maintain that anyone’s reasons for making a decision are either arbitrary or 100% selfish, including yours. i was just showing that your example was not one in which your decision was not 100% selfish.
perhaps if you consider what i’m saying, you will see that there is nothing incongruous between something that is 100% selfish and something that helps others. if you want to help others, you can do it for reasons that are entirely selfish, though you may not gain monetarily.
you oversimplify my view.
rape is not something i would do, and something which i think ought to be prevented. these notions are also not incongruous with moral relativism. if you don’t believe i can come up with entirely selfish reasons that rape should be illegal, you should think harder about what it means to act in your own best interest 100% of the time.
please reconsider the depth of my view before making these accusations. i find your tone almost as offensive as your simplistic portrayal of my point.
Not when the catalyst is me, because I base my ethics on the theory of rights and obligations, not on mere outcomes. The distinction between act and omission important in rights theory.
I respect the negative rights of everyone to their life, liberty and property. Negative rights create negative obligations, the obligation to refrain from acting in some situations. That means that I will not, by action, deprive another of those things. Positive rights would create positive obligations, the obligation to take an affirmative action. Under such a rights system, other people would be morally compelled to act to satisfy those rights.
I favor the recognition of universal negative rights rather than positive ones, because everyone’s negative rights can be upheld. If everyone has those three negative rights, their rights will never conflict and require that one person’s rights are abrogated to another’s. The rights require only that we all refrain from certain actions, and it is possible for us all to do that. If, however, we adopted a system of positive rights, where a person’s “right to life” meant not that I must refrain from killing him but that I must take affirmative actions to sustain his life, then we face conflicting rights. I would have to be dispossed of my rights to life, liberty or property to satisfy another’s rights to such – both could not be satisfied because they directly conflict. A universal “right” hardly deserves the name if it cannot actually be satisfied for each person who has the right. Therefore I do not believe in positive obligations. I may still choose to give others assistance, I view it as morally permissible even though not required, but they will take assistance as my gift to them not demand it as their “right”.
Thus I care very much about other people’s rights, for that is the basis of my ideology and the guidepost for my moral actions, but I do not use their pleasure and pain as the factor for making decisions. That does not mean that I ignore it, because in the zone of morally permissible actions (those that are neither obligatory or forbidden), I may seek to consider any and all factual circumstances that will impact the result of my decision. My friends and family are valuable to me, and so I would take certain steps not to increase their pleasure (or reduce their pain), so as to maintain a relationship that I value. As for everyone else, I would restrain my actions to respect their rights where the decision would affect rights, and in the remaining zone of permissible action I would attempt to maximize the gain in value (I probably have little to gain from causing pain to random people, and much to lose in valuable reputation, for instance.)
Thus you can see why I chose the examples I did in my previous post, and how I arrived at my decision in each hypothetical.
Huh? You said
Ramanujan has clearly stated he cares about his pleasure and pain, no-one else’s. It sounds like you’re with me.
Since I can’t let you look inside my head, I can’t disprove this. I’ll just have to assure you that I get absolutely no personal pleasure from either my donations nor my dietary decisions. I have rationally decided they’re the right things to do. I often wish I hadn’t, since they’re a pain.
I already see that. I just dispute that every action is 100% selfish or arbitrary.
Of course, but if you gain in no way, I can’t see how it’s selfish.
I have, and it’s not an accusation, it’s a statement of fact. You said
It’s pretty hard to take that another way, and when IWLN says the problem is people only think about their own pleasure and pain, that fits you.
Now Priceguy, I didn’t say I didn’t agree, well yes I did. Okay, I do agree, but hesitate to make an issue of it because it is out of my control. Not my choice. If we all were concerned only for our own pain and pleasure, the world would be a horrible place. So I’m glad that all people don’t feel the way they do. Uh…but I was trying not to be quite so inflammatory. Next time I’m trying to tiptoe out, don’t draw everyone’s attention to it. :eek: