How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[ QUOTE ]
How about this then: Your choice is between 100 people being killed and having to tear the skin off of a 1 year old baby with a pair of plyers. This is from a freshman philosophy course...

[/ QUOTE ]

I would refuse to chose. But I want to know how you answered.

[West]

I think you probably need to rework your example. Choosing to not be coerced into making a decision like that is definitely an option.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
You are brought at gunpoint into a laboratory where you will be forced to choose which of two rooms will have those in it killed painlessly. If you refuse they all will be, so let's not even contemplate that option.

In one room is a very elderly person you have never met. In the other is your devoted three year old collie. Can sparing your collie be justifed by any respected philosophies? What about any respected religions?

[/ QUOTE ]

In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

chez

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is a cheap way out from trying to make a tough decision. This is the worst morality of all. You have been given the option of saving someones life, but you don't have the balls to pick who, so you decide to kill everyone.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nonsense, its not a way out at all. I believe the world would be a much better place if people refused to cooperate with bad people. I assume we agree that the gunman is a bad person whatever we mean by bad.

By simplefying the problem so much DS misses out on all the ramifications of the decision that make it moral e.g.

Will cooperation make it more likely he will do it again?
Will it be even worse next time?
Would he have even committed this act if he didn't expect cooperation?
etc.

I don't believe either choice DS wants to leave us with tends to make the world a better place than the other, and hence its not a moral choice for me. BTW I didn't say I wouldn't chose, just that the choice wouldn't be to do with morality - thats assuming the scenario prevents not cooperating as an option.

chez

[Lestat]

So basically we are talking about terrorism. Why not form the question as such instead of some silly implausible scenario of a gunman holding an old man and your collie hostage? These are real life questions we might need to face one day.

[David Sklansky]

"In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation."

This is a ridiculous post. Not because there isn't some rationale to not cooperate with gunmen for some long term good. But because I specifically stipulated that it shouldn't be considered. It had nothing to do with the point. I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant. Or something along those lines. Anybody who interjects arguments about gunmen into this thread has some sort of problem.

[mackthefork]

Would anyone find out if I killed the old guy? Chances are I would if he was very old. The dog makes me happy, the old guy just complains about my dog shitting on his lawn.

Mack

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
"In my morality it's always right not to cooperate with the man with the gun. By removing that option you remove the morality from the situation."

This is a ridiculous post. Not because there isn't some rationale to not cooperate with gunmen for some long term good. But because I specifically stipulated that it shouldn't be considered. It had nothing to do with the point. I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant. Or something along those lines. Anybody who interjects arguments about gunmen into this thread has some sort of problem.

[/ QUOTE ]

No no no, I protest. I'm happy to remove the gunman from the problem, as I said but in doing so I claim you remove the moral issues from the decision.

If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality. Address this if you like, but don't misunderstand my post.

Are you suggesting it is ridiculous to suggest you are missing the point?

chez

[David Sklansky]

"If you think chosing the dog or the man has more than nodding aquaintance with a moral decision then I think you misunderstand the nature of morality."

I neither know nor care if the decision is is a moral one an ethical one or has some other name. All I care about are the reasons, if any behind it, and whether it logically contradicts other decisions that same person makes.