Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

Why do people invent coping strategies for these dilemmas? It is pretty clear what David is getting at, and this line of questioning only serves as a distraction. It's time to [censored] or get off the pot.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

On Sunday through Friday, I push button three and feel very good about myself. On Saturday, I decide that since I've been such a nice boy that I will make up for my losses by pressing button two. On Sunday, I immediately wake up and repent of my sin, pushing button three. Then I go to church and pray for the strength to do God's will in the following week, which all goes swimmingly until Saturday rolls around and I realize I'm broke again...

At the end of one year, I will...
Celebrate the fact that I've saved 312 lives.
Mourn the fact that I've killed 52 people.
Take consolation in the fact that none of these deaths were painful.
Donate $520 to my favorite relief organization.
Push button three before hanging myself.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

If we stipulate that this government policy will never change no matter what you do, does this alter your answer?

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Starting tomorrow the government of all wealthy countries asks their more well off citizens to endure the following scenario once a day. Participation is not mandatory.

Upon getting up in the morning they are shown a picture of a child from a third world country who for whatever reason is about to die a prolonged excruciating death. They can now press one of three buttons. If they press button one they will be given $500. If they press button two, they will be given $100 and the child will die painlessly. If they press button three, the child will be spared but they will lose $15. What is the moral choice for this daily dilemma?

[/ QUOTE ]This one is easy. The government is unethical as well as the people who encouraged the government. The government does not have a claim on the persons life.

Further, non participation is ethical, as well as option 3.

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-participation is ok. Active opposition sounds right to me.

chez

[/ QUOTE ]

Non-participation means you are allowing the possibility of someone else doing something unethical. You have the option to prevent this at least once, by participating.

[/ QUOTE ]

If enough fail to particpate then the policy will change. Whatever the purpose behind the policy will fail.

Cooperation with a bad policy endorses it both in principle and practice.

chez

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
What I was trying to get at was in the situation; those who support the govenrment in question are unethical, as well as the persons in the government.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they believe what the government is doing is wrong then I totally agree. It seems possible (I suppose) that someone could approve of this policy in which case supporting it would be ethical.

[ QUOTE ]
The 2nd part of my response was more along the lines of is it ethical to do charity. Both charity and non charity are ethical. It is a choice. It is not ones respsonsiblity to go around the world helping people in need. It is ethical to be selfish, and it is ehtical to be charitable. Forced charity is unethical.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is 'forced charity' an oxymoron. If it isn't is should be [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img] (Forced charity = tax)

chez

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]

If they press button three, the child will be spared but they will lose $15.


[/ QUOTE ]

I'm guilty. We all have this option every day. Though I couldn't manage $15 a day I could do more. Sometimes I hate myself.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
On Sunday through Friday, I push button three and feel very good about myself. On Saturday, I decide that since I've been such a nice boy that I will make up for my losses by pressing button two. On Sunday, I immediately wake up and repent of my sin, pushing button three. Then I go to church and pray for the strength to do God's will in the following week, which all goes swimmingly until Saturday rolls around and I realize I'm broke again...

At the end of one year, I will...
Celebrate the fact that I've saved 312 lives.
Mourn the fact that I've killed 52 people.
Take consolation in the fact that none of these deaths were painful.
Donate $520 to my favorite relief organization.
Push button three before hanging myself.

[/ QUOTE ]

I've highlighted your reply in bold where I feel you have misread David's original message below: (although to be fair it is vague)

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />

Starting tomorrow the government of all wealthy countries asks their more well off citizens to endure the following scenario once a day

[/ QUOTE ]

One has to assume this is restricted to the Bougeois and not the Proletariat, of which your reply most likely pertains.

If you are asking Rich people to consciously make the decision to kill an individual on a daily basis you'll get alot of "passing the buck", possibly ad infinitum - despite the fact that some of these Bougeois have business interests in parts of Africa and/or other 3rd world countries where their actions largely contribute to the state of poverty and thus in some cases cause many deaths, either directly or indirectly - the fact is "see no evil, hear no evil" helps them sleep well on their Egyptian Cotton pillows at night, and even if it doesn't there's medication to fix that.

As long as there is an option to "pass the buck" this scenario is flawed, and even if that option was removed and one was forced to make a decision, capitalism always wins in the end, if the more well off aren't voluntarily spending $30 per month to save little Zu-Zubu now, what makes you think they'll sacrifice $450-465 per month to save the same child?

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

The right answer.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

I agree with Not Ready. (Who would have thunk it?) That John Cole also agrees makes me feel better about it. We could all do more but don't because we choose not to. It's easier because we don't actually see the children suffering.

The movie The Constant Gardener addresses this point quite well, I think.

Re: Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

[ QUOTE ]
On Saturday, I decide that since I've been such a nice boy that I will make up for my losses by pressing button two.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why are you pressing button two instead of button one?

Given the choice between 1 child dying a painful death or 5 dying painless deaths, surely the former is the better option?



I believe it would be ethical to kill 1 in every 34.3 kids and break even.

However, since we are well off, why not save every single kid for the small cost of about $450 a month?

If we cannot afford $5475 p/a, then we should do what we can and cover the rest with the odd sacrifice IMO.


P.S. All this talk about governments and passing the buck is way off topic. The fact that the system might not actually work is irrelevant.