Absolute Morals, Sins of Commission vs Omission etc.
 

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. IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE THEN AN ALTERNATE WHO WOULD NOT NORMALLY PARTICPATE IS CHOSEN IN YOUR STEAD.

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. And again the fourth alternative is to do nothing whereupon an alternate is given these choices. What is the moral choice for this daily dilemma?

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

[ 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.

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
IF YOU CHOOSE NOT TO PARTICIPATE THEN AN ALTERNATE WHO WOULD NOT NORMALLY PARTICPATE IS CHOSEN IN YOUR STEAD.

[/ QUOTE ]

Who is this alternate and what if the alternate chooses not to participate?

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

"Who is this alternate and what if the alternate chooses not to participate?"

You don't know. And if he doesn't particpate, another unknown alternate is picked.

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
"Who is this alternate and what if the alternate chooses not to participate?"

You don't know. And if he doesn't particpate, another unknown alternate is picked.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then there is a possibility that each alternate will continuously pass on the responsibility to an unknown other ad infinitum?

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

What does "the child will be spared" mean? I think this is very crucial, as a very large percent of child deaths in 3rd world countries are directly related to malnutrition. Does pressing the 3rd button mean that the child will be given food aid for the rest of his life? Or only to immediately save his life? How much will this cost to the 1st world government? The economics of large scale aid also need to be considered here, and how it quite often makes a country worse off in the long run. Or are we ignoring this important fact?

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

[ 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

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

[ 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.

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

Obviously. But you can not guarantee this result, and it is highly unlikely given the stakes. Nevermind the fact that the scenario itself is highly unlikely; that is the basic conceit of the question.

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

[ 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 ]Yes actively opposing your government is ethical. Supporting a government that would do such a thing is unethical.

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.

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.

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.

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

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with that as well but its not because its better than the other two choice (which is implied by the question).

Its a good thing to do in its own right.

chez

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

You should nitpick more carefully. The areas in my reply which you highlight were both sarcastic.

Let me be clear. Button three is the most obviously moral choice. Non-participation is significantly less moral. And it is decidedly immoral if we assume that refusal to participate will not influence the government policy. For the sake of the question, I make that assumption.

The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash.

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

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

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not certain I agree with this, but my response was not to be taken too seriously anyway. Your question, however, does get at the most provocative aspect of this scenario.

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

[/ QUOTE ]

Is this a personal maxim or a plot?

[ QUOTE ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

Glad someone else agrees.

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

So, the moral authority here is the “government of all wealthy countries”. We have free will: “participation is not mandatory.”

1) +$500 I assume kid dies painfully.
2) +100 and kid has no pain in dying.
3) -$15 and kid is spared.
4) Do nothing


How big is my bankroll? How many -$15 do I have?
What happens if I do nothing and all the alternates do nothing, too? How many alternates are in the pool of button pushers.
How many dying kids are on death row? If the kid is spared does Big Government go on to the next kid?

Under this scenario, is there an afterlife or is death finality?

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

i'm assuming you only want people who adhere to moral codes to be involved in these posts, correct?

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

</font><blockquote><font class="small">En respuesta a:</font><hr />
You should nitpick more carefully. The areas in my reply which you highlight were both sarcastic.

[/ QUOTE ]

And without use of emoticons how can one deduce sarcasm from mere text, which via this medium can only be taken subjectively?

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

Let me be clear. Button three is the most obviously moral choice. Non-participation is significantly less moral. And it is decidedly immoral if we assume that refusal to participate will not influence the government policy. For the sake of the question, I make that assumption.

The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash.

[/ QUOTE ]

Rich people didn't become rich by willingly allowing $450-465 to leak out of their accounts at the end of the month, and while I doubt any rich person who isn't having a bad day or a sociopath would take option 1, option 2 is +EV and from a realist perspective and would be the most worn out button if "buck-passing" was eliminated.

This scenario is naive because it assumes that the current situation may be different if rich people had to actively press a button instead of sub-contracting their 'questionable' exploits while they distract themselves playing Tennis with other distracted exploiters.

The whole fact that life is in your hands only reaffirms how unfair life is, and that it's better to be pushing the button and making decisions than to be impoverished - but have a clear conscience, and be at the mercy of a button pusher.

I'm just sick of the neverending "Atheist club vs Theist club merry-go-round" threads and the only alternatives offered by David which are about dogs and African kids. With all the supposed great minds in SMP, why are we even replying to these weak scenarios?

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

"How many dying kids are on death row? If the kid is spared does Big Government go on to the next kid?"

If you can use $15 to save one, isn't that a good thing? There are very few of us who do all we can. And we don't because we don't want to. It's easy because we don't see all the kids on death row.

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

"The main reason that it's easy to become a "desk murderer" is disassociation of one's actions and their consequences. David's scenario does a nice job of removing the desk, and because of this, I doubt that even very greedy people would fail to choose button three (at least not on day one). Some might pass the buck, but only a very few would take the cash."

Just so. In the real world, we all take the cash every day.