[sweetjazz]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

My contention is that the scenario outlined is somewhat similar. The right thing to do would be to refrain from using the death ray, even though it would be very difficult for most people to actually do so because they would allow their emotions and personal interests to trump their concern for making a morally correct decision. And given the stakes at hand and the fact that many people would make what I believe is the morally wrong decision, that indicates to me that it is possible (indeed appropriate) to be lenient toward the person even though they end up doing something wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

But this is not even an argument. All you do is state the conclusion you believe is correct without giving any reasons to believe so. It may seem obvious to you, and most of us, that 10 lives are worth more than one, but that doesn't make it true.

I'm not arguing that morality is relative. That would imply that ethical propositions are something we can assign as either true or false. I'm saying that there is no list of facts and inferences that can prove one way or another which actions are good and which bad.

That means that ethics is fundamentally NOT like physics, or poker. It isn't just that it is "difficult." It is completely intractable. It is beyond truth. Not even GOD could come up with an objective proof that ten lives have more worth than one (all things being equal). That's why it's called faith.

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope that I can reply to both of you in one reply, as I believe your responses are similar. I apologize in advance if I miss a subtle point in one of your arguments by trying to treat the two as one.

First of all, I realize that I did not provide an argument for my view in the post you replied to, but I have explained my reasoning in other posts. My series of posts with sexypanda explored the different rationales for killing someone.

The first premise of my argument is that, in order to willingly kill an individual, one must have a justification for it. Possible justifications given in other replies are:
(1) the other person requests your assistance in killing them (e.g. euthanasia)
(2) someone's rights are being infringed and you reasonably believe that homocide is necessary to protect the other person's rights (e.g. shooting someone who was about to shoot you or someone else)

Since the killing of the African children does not fall into any of the possible justifications for willingly killing another individual, it is immoral.

One premise in my argument is that there is a distinction between killing the African children with the death ray -- an outcome that would not have occurred had I not existed -- and allowing the loved one to die from the terminal illness -- an outcome that would haev occurred had I not existed. Many people in this thread have asserted that allowing the loved one to die is akin to murder.

I think it is clear that, all things being equal, one should not allow someone to die if there is something that can be done to prevent that situation from happening, especially if that person is a loved one. It would certainly be wrong to sit back and let them die if all you had to do was drive down to the local pharmacist and buy a $10 pill for them. However, while you should take every reasonable effort to save the loved one, you should not murder another person (or multiple people) in order to do so.

It has absolutely nothing to do with trying to assess which person's life has more value. That is a subjective judgment and clearly will depend on who is making the assessment (e.g. whether it is you or the mother of the African children). In fact, that is one of the main reasons why it is wrong to kill someone else (outside of the exceptions listed above)! Because we cannot objectively determine the value of people's lives and so we don't have the right to play God. When it comes to determining who will live and who will die, we are sometimes morally obligated to allow the natural course (i.e. the one that would take place if we weren't around) to take place.

The scenario of the OP is an illustrative example of such a case. The mistake in thinking it is okay to kill the African children is assuming that the situation is symmetric (someone will get killed no matter what we choose) and therefore we are free to decide for ourselves who dies. In fact, the situation is asymmetric, because letting the loved one die, though unbelievably painful and regrettable, is not murder while blasting the African children with the death ray is murder. And not murdering innocent people takes precedence over saving the life of an individual, no matter how dear to heart.