Moral Responsibility.

[Kaz The Original]

A caveat, if you'll allow me, before this thought experiment. I do not believe in morality. I act in a moral manner but fundamentally have no belief in it. I believe only in causes and reactions, but am interested in your viewpoints.


Assume you are on an island (always the perfect variabless environment) with enough food to feed both you and another person for a life time. You produced this food, and he did not, either by inability or by laziness. You have enough to feed him, but if you keep it all yourself you get a more pleasure from it.

I would assume almost everyone would share it with this person. Would anyone not?

Would it be 'morally' wrong to not share?

There will be follow up questions : )

[HDPM]

I would share, but I do not think there is any moral obligation to feed the other person. If I got more pleasure from watching the other person starve, I guess I wouldn't feed him. But alas, as much of a hard ass as I am, I would not get more pleasure seeing him starve. I don't think it is immoral to let the other guy starve. Nor do I think it is immoral to help the other person. It depends on what you value. I value his life enough to feed him probably. The only thing that would be immoral is for somebody to come take my food at gunpoint and give it to the other guy as welfare.

[Kaz The Original]

Does everything have to get back to government interference with you people lol : ) Just kidding of course.

[lastchance]

It comes down to this:
A. Do I like/hate the guy? What do I think of him?
B. Could he do something useful down the road?
C. Would he share in the opposite situation?

[Kaz The Original]

Are these questions as to whether it is moral to share with him, or whether you would share with him?

[lastchance]

Whether or not I would. As for moral responsibility, I tend not to feel it towards those I dislike/hate, and feel it towards those I like, and I think that's +EV, so I'm doing that. Yes, I know I'm a selfish SOB.

[Dead]

Yes it would be morally wrong.

[InchoateHand]

Morals are what I make of them, so for the time being, he gets to eat. We'll see what he can do in return.

[TransientR]

Many women face this same situation sans island:

Do I continue to take care of this useless oaf or not?

/images/graemlins/grin.gif

[lehighguy]

There is no such thing as absolute morality. So each persons reponse is as valid and trivial as the next.

[andyfox]

"The only thing that would be immoral is for somebody to come take my food at gunpoint and give it to the other guy as welfare."

Well, that's either an argument against welfare, or against guns. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[crookedhat99]

I'd much rather not have my decision based on how much I like/dislike the guy, I would just automatically give him his fair share of food. The reason is because I wouldn't want to have my life or death decided by someone else based on whether they like me or not. These are essentially what morals are, and I think morals are a much more conflict-avoiding way of thinking about things.

[[censored]]

I sure as [censored] am not sharing with him. That lazy bastard better find something I value in order to procure some food from me or he is going to be a lazy, hungry bastard..

[Richard Tanner]

"Morals" don't exist, they are just a word used to discribe a socially acceptable way to act (certain exceptions). Morals are fluid and change depending on the speaker.
That said, I would trade him the food for something I needed, let's say shelter. He's happy, I'm happy (other than the fact that we're marooned on a damn island).

Cody

[vulturesrow]

To me it would be clearly morally wrong to withold food from the other individual. Interestingly enough, this thread has shown the foothold that moral relativism has retained in our society at large, even though philosophically speaking, moral relativism is generally regarded as a dead end.

[lehighguy]

I don't see how moral relativism is a dead end. I act in a pretty "moral" fashion day-to-day, but mainly because it makes me feel good. In the absense of such a feeling, I would probably act "immorally".

[wtfsvi]

It seems you all agree that there is no common moral? That is quite special. I mean, moral relativism is quite an extremist stand.

The world trade center attack was fine, Hiroshima was fine, Hitlers views were fine. You people really think so?

As for the topic, I would most certainly give him food if he didn't have food bacause of inability. If it was lazyness I would try to push him into not being lazy anymore by starving him, but if it didn't work I would share my food with him after a few days.

Edit: And yes, I believe it would be moraly wrong to not share.

[vulturesrow]

to put it simply, moral relativism makes it very hard to lay claim to any sort of fundamental human rights. It makes it nigh impossible to come up with a rational reason why one should respect the rights of others.

[jaxmike]

Why?

[zaxx19]

There is no such thing as absolute morality.

Ok, Ill be feeding the thai boy slaves in my basement dog food instead of the usual bologna....now that I can feel ok about it.

Oh, and Hiroshima was fine....sorry to busrt your liberal bubble it saved MILLIONS OF LIVES most of which being Japanese civilians.

[HDPM]

His fair share of food is nothing.

Now you have the right to give him more than his fair share, because you can do anything you want with your food. Why do you think his fair share amounts to anything?

[HDPM]

It's an argument against welfare and against guns in the hands of those who believe in welfare. I of course have the right to a gun. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[HDPM]

To be clear, my position is not based on moral relativism. I do think there are moral standards. I think there are fundamental human rights. The right to have somebody feed you isn't one of them. Yes Andy, the rights to defend yourself and have appropriate tools to do so are. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[wtfsvi]

</font><blockquote><font class="small">Svar på:</font><hr />
There is no such thing as absolute morality.

Ok, Ill be feeding the thai boy slaves in my basement dog food instead of the usual bologna....now that I can feel ok about it.

Oh, and Hiroshima was fine....sorry to busrt your liberal bubble it saved MILLIONS OF LIVES most of which being Japanese civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

I take it this was meant to be a response to me? (Because of the Hiroshima-statement.) If you think there is no such thing as absolute morality, your reasoning for why Hiroshima was fine is flawed. It was fine because everything is fine if there is no such thing as absolute morality. The wtc-attack was fine, raping and murdering children (or you for that matter) is fine. You cannot disagree, and that my friend, makes you the libreal. (I realize you have some huged-up definition of that word in the U.S. that I don't understand. When I say liberal I mean what it means in the rest of the world.)

[andyfox]

Touche!

Bravo.

[zaxx19]

I think there is a such thing as absolute morality.

I just think the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was justified morally.

Touche, Bravo, yooohoo Me.

[wtfsvi]

You need to answer to the right posts.

I highly disagree with you on that matter, but as you at least recognise there is such a thing as absolute morality, I'll save the Hiroshima discussion for later.

[zaxx19]

Oh ya, I forgot they were primed and ready to surrender in response to a less violent event or threat......

thats why they didnt surrender to the first bombing.

Simple, basic logic.

[vulturesrow]

[ QUOTE ]
To be clear, my position is not based on moral relativism. I do think there are moral standards. I think there are fundamental human rights. The right to have somebody feed you isn't one of them. Yes Andy, the rights to defend yourself and have appropriate tools to do so are. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

I actually wasnt referring directly to you HP, just addressing what I saw as the trend in responses. I understand your reasoning but I think maybe the OP didnt quite ask the question correctly. Let me hijack the OP for a moment and twist it a bit and see what you think.

Scenario pretty much stays the same except now our companion on the island cant produce food due to mental or physical inability. You know that you two will never be rescued and that your companion will die within a month of starvation if you dont share your food with him. Do you do it?

[wtfsvi]

Maby you would want to the US to surrender if say, Saddam, A-bombed one of your larger cities and killed hundreds of thousands Americans a couple of years ago. And if you didn't surrender it would definitly be fine if he bombed another one.

fantastic logic. Oh well. This is totally off topic. Start a new thread if you want to reply.

[zaxx19]

Even more fantastic logic...

The US circa 1945 = Iraq circa 2003

and

Japan circa 1945 = US circa 2003

Liberal logic at its best.

[wtfsvi]

absolute morality 1945 = absolute morality 2003

[HDPM]

I didn't assume you thought I was a relativist, but I just wanted to make it clear since I didn't elaborate on my position much.

In the second scenario I would definitely share food. However, I still think it is absolutely immoral for anybody to force me to share.

[zaxx19]

But there such a thing as say justifiable homocide....

It has a place in the world of absolute morality.

Basically I think you have a problem with war which is fine.

War is terrible and the means by which nations are forced to win wars are terrible. Those means however must be weighed against the alternative of continuiing the war.

There is nothing i that that is inconsistent with absolute morality if you dont think war is in conflict with absolute morality.

Perhaps most Norwegians are at a point where they do believe this...unfortunately most of the world is not.

[mmcd]

[ QUOTE ]
The reason is because I wouldn't want to have my life or death decided by someone else based on whether they like me or not.

[/ QUOTE ]

This isn't really the case for all people. If the situation were reversed and the other guy wouldn't feed me, I'd just kill him and take all the food. If he's not willing or able to do this when he's the one starving, then he is placing his own life or death in my hands.

As to whether I feed him or not, it just comes down to whether his being alive can benefit me in any way (and also of course whether he is capable of killing me).

[wtfsvi]

You seriously need to learn how the forum works.

And you are correct, I don't believe there is such a thing as moraly justified homocide, not to mention genocide.

My opinion is probably not shared by the majority of the Norwegian people. Maby 30% though. Just a wild guess.

[zaxx19]

Damn my logic is gonna sound pretty liberal here....

If I have enough food to share and maintain my body weight, strenght, health etc etc- I share.

This is bc I lose only comfort from not eating more, while having a starving desperate and understandably angry individual roaming around the island is quite obviously a dangerous and stressful situation that could cost me my survival.

Add that consideration to the fact that he might come in handy later on and I think its clear that you should share as long as there is a surplus.

[zaxx19]

I don't believe there is such a thing as moraly justified homocide

Ok, we have ended the conversation.....

I do believe there is such a thing as justifiable homocide.

e.g. Someone breaks into my home attacks my family members with a weapon..I have a gun. He is going to die. And im not gonna feel morally wrong in killing him.

[wtfsvi]

I'll probably shoot him too, but if he dies, I will feel morally wrong.

You're right, we've ended the discussion.

And you seriously seriosly need to learn where you should post your replies.

[mmcd]

I agree with this generally, and would probably want to have a specific reason not to feed him. If I decided not to feed him and he presented any sort of a threat to me, I'd just kill him rather than let him roam around starving. Unless of course he REALLY pissed me off, then I'd confine him rather than kill him.