Thought Experiment Regarding Omission vs Commission

[David Sklansky]

Every day at five o'clock before Andy Fox can claim his $10,000 daily pay, he has to sit at a desk and push one of three buttons. If he pushes button #1 the ten grand comes sliding out of a slot TWELVE HOURS LATER. Above button #2 is a picture of a little child who will die unless Andy pushes the button. If he does, a lifetime supply of medicine that will keep the kid alive will be delivered to him via helicopter. But only eight grand will slide out, again twelve hours later. Button #3 has a picture of four kids (including the #2 button kid) who could be saved, but only two thousand is paid out twelve hours later if he pushes it.

Andy has decided to push button #2 every day as long as he is working. It is now his last day at work and he will have to start living off his savings and he will stop his charity. When he goes back to collect his final pay there is only $2000. He calls up the machine maker who admits that there was a malfunction that made it recognize button 2 as button three. The problem is that the medicine is already in the air on the way to the three kids. To rectify the situation Andy must go to the rectifier machine which has one button with the three kid's pictures on top of it. If he pushes it, a signal will be sent to the helicopter to turn around (the kids have NOT been told it was on the way) and his six thousand would come out of the slot.

There is zero difference morally betwween Andy doing that and his original intention to push button #2 then #3. But the second act would be called by many homicide for money (true it was money that he was owed but the same is true for many other felonious homicides.) Yet I stick by the first sentence of this paragraph.

[andyfox]

Thanks for not using my name in the title of the thread. The previous two times that happened, in one case I was supposed to be a great debater, and in the other I was a co-liar. I am not the former, but, unfortunately, I was the latter.

I assume the first sentence in you last paragraph should read, at the end, "button two rather than button three."

I'll give the thought experiment some thought. I (at least for now) stand by my original argument that the real world involves so many more complications than this contrivance that I'm not sure of its relevance.

Anyway, if you're correct, it looks like I'm not going to heaven after all. Or at least it's Not Ready for me.

[ThreeMartini]

Lemme get this straight. The guy makes 8K a day and is fretting his last $6,000? He's worried about living off his savings? Lets say he 'worked' there 20 yrs...at
$6,000/d. That's 1.5+M a year, bringing his button pushing career earnings to over THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS. If he's worried about his retirement he's an idiot regardless of which button he pushes the Friday of his last day.

[ThreeMartini]

OOOPS, he's an even bigger idiot that I stated he's earned over $40,000,000 during his 20 years of service.

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
Lemme get this straight. The guy makes 8K a day and is fretting his last $6,000? He's worried about living off his savings? Lets say he 'worked' there 20 yrs...at
$6,000/d. That's 1.5+M a year, bringing his button pushing career earnings to over THIRTY MILLION DOLLARS. If he's worried about his retirement he's an idiot regardless of which button he pushes the Friday of his last day.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please don't confuse the real Andy Fox with the "idiot" you are thinking of. Although he very well could be making 10K a day, he isn't an idiot and he isn't amoral.

~ Rick

[andyfox]

" . . . he isn't an idiot . . ."

One is reminded of the story Krushchev used to tell about himself. One day a man was running around the Kremlin yelling, "Krushchev is an idiot! Krushchev is an idiot!" He was arrested, tried, convicted, and sentenced to twenty years in Siberia. Two years for insulting the Party Secretary, and eighteen for revealing a state secret.

There a similar action because in neither case does he intend to kill the children. In both cases the death are side effects of his choice to take the $8000. I don't think DS is thinking about intentions when he creates these posts. And in the end thats what has to make the difference.

[David Sklansky]

"I don't think DS is thinking about intentions when he creates these posts. And in the end thats what has to make the difference."

Allow me to rephrase. "It is worse to WANT someone to die than to simply NOT CARE if they die. Or care so little whether they die, that you you care more whether you can buy an extra tenth of a carot diamond ring."

Granted. But how much worse is it?

Meanwhile a murderer who murders strictly for money doesn't actually want someone to die either. The death is merely required for him to get his money. Just like in the Andy Fox example above.

[David Sklansky]

"Anyway, if you're correct, it looks like I'm not going to heaven after all."

This thread was written for the sole purpose of illustrating that there is a very fuzzy line between sins of omission and commision. It had nothing to do with you. As far as you going to heaven is concerned, I already SAID that you were.

If I were to believe in morals I think I would say that there is zero difference

Taking this further, If some guy generated a large amount of wealth, and then saved a guy from certain death by starvation, then 1 year later murders this guy (painlessly), I would call this morally good overall.

Although for various reasons I would still prefer this to be illegal

[Rick Nebiolo]

[ QUOTE ]
One is reminded of the story Krushchev used to tell about himself.

[/ QUOTE ]

Krushchev was a character. I can't imagine growing up when we did and not knowing what he looked like and at least sort of what he was doing on the world stage. It seems to me there aren't too many world leaders in the same category these days.

I assume this story came from one of the thousand plus biographies you've read. Are there any you would say are good reads (although I need to read American Sphinx next)?

~ Rick

[andyfox]

"This thread was written for the sole purpose of illustrating that there is a very fuzzy line between sins of omission and commision. It had nothing to do with you. As far as you going to heaven is concerned, I already SAID that you were."

I should have put a /images/graemlins/wink.gif after my comment. There is indeed a fuzzier line than most would admit, but I don't think it's as fuzzy as you do.

FWIW, I am much happer you SAID I could go to heaven than if Not Ready's god SAID I could. Going to His heaven would be pure hell.

[David Sklansky]

"FWIW, I am much happer you SAID I could go to heaven"

Would, not could.

[andyfox]

Last post on this, so as not to hijack. Krushchev might have been a character, but he was not to be underestimated. He came through Salin's time and ended up leading the country. He had to be one tough bastard.

If you're reading one book on Jefferson, American Sphinx is pretty damn good. Fawn Brodie's biography is also good as is the recent Jefferson's Secrets by Andrew Burstein.

[andyfox]

"'FWIW, I am much happer you SAID I could go to heaven'

Should, not could. "

FYP

[microbet]

Profiting from a death does not a murderer make. Ask any mortician.

If someone steals my checkbook and cleans out my bank account by writing checks to "Save the Children Foundation" and I find out and get my money back from the charity, I am not a murderer and neither would Andy Fox be one if he wanted his money back.

[David Sklansky]

"Profiting from a death does not a murderer make. Ask any mortician."

Stupid comment. I was talking about allowing a death to occur that, while under no legal obligation to save, you and almost everybody else would have most certainly saved, if there wasn't so much profit in not doing it.

[microbet]

[ QUOTE ]
Stupid comment.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ouch, but I'll get over it.

[ QUOTE ]
I was talking about allowing a death to occur that, while under no legal obligation to save, you and almost everybody else would have most certainly saved, if there wasn't so much profit in not doing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, and that was what the rest of my post was about. Andy does nothing wrong in getting his money back. It is his money, same as if it was in his pocket. I don't know who would call his actions homicide for money. In this case, IMHO, Omission and Commission are the same and neither are a sin.

[spaminator101]

[ QUOTE ]
FWIW, I am much happer you SAID I could go to heaven than if Not Ready's god SAID I could. Going to His heaven would be pure hell.

[/ QUOTE ]

why exactly would this be so

[David Sklansky]

"Yes, and that was what the rest of my post was about. Andy does nothing wrong in getting his money back."

I agree. But guess what? ANDY WOULDN'T TRY TO GET HIS MONEY BACK. And neither would a lot of other people.

[andyfox]

Because He's cruel. I can't imagine His idea of heaven is a place I would want to be.

[ QUOTE ]
If I were to believe in morals I think I would say that there is zero difference

Taking this further, If some guy generated a large amount of wealth, and then saved a guy from certain death by starvation, then 1 year later murders this guy (painlessly), I would call this morally good overall.

Although for various reasons I would still prefer this to be illegal

[/ QUOTE ]

I changed my mind about this post, I still think what he did would be wrong, but not as wrong as not saving the guy in the first place, so it's only morally good relative to not doing anything

[ThreeMartini]

I'm sorry if my sarcasm died somewhere enroute to the forum.

Killing as a means to an end is morally questionable. Such is the case of an assassin or terrorist. Killing that results from an action which unintendedly kills is much more ethical. Even if the killing is foreseen. THis would be the philosophical principle of the Double Doctrine. The difference between bombing civilians and strategic military bombings. Both kill innocents, but only one intends to kill innocents.