How About THIS Morals -Ethics Question?

[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.

[craig r]

[ 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 ]

Here is my problem with these types of questions: You don't know what you would do a lot of times until you are in the situation. I think the Stanford test proved that (the interrogation/torture one). We can make an assumption, but that is about it. If you would have asked some of the U.S. soldiers if they would have tortured Iraqi's before they left, my guess is that most would have said "no"; even the ones who ended up doing it. I think you could say the same thing about most of the Nazis/SS/Gestap/etc...

craig

[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

There is no logical, objective answer. The reason that most of us would pick the human is that we can more emotionally relate to the human than the dog. Neither is more important,in the way that one clump of atoms is no more important than another clump of atoms.

So, it would cause me more pain to ignore the human and pick the dog, than to pick the human and ignore the dog.

Shooby [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[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

[gamblore99]

[ QUOTE ]
A collie cannot be "more" of a person. It's a dog.

I agree you can come to love a dog, but you would be acting in your own self interest. I pray a stranger never finds him or herself old and trapped in a burning building with you and your dog.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't count being human as a requirement for being a person. Like someone here said, we are more likley to relate emotionally to the human than the man because we are the same species. However in this situation, the love and concern for the dog which is the kind one has for a family member is more powerful than the emotional bond we have with this random human. The dog is more of a person because we are more connected with it.

If you can say you love a friend more than for the pleasure he/she provides you, but as something deeper, then you can say the same for a dog or any animal.

Now if you change the man with a baby, or more people then it becomes more tricky. I think at some point you feel emotionally more for the people than your dog, so you pick the people. Even if they are strangers.

what if you had to choose between a three year old CHILD and an elderly lady?

[hmkpoker]

I save the collie.

I estimate it to be unlikely that the elderly person has any dependants (information to the contrary might make me think otherwise), and I have some emotional attachment to the collie.

Lassie lives.

[West]

[ 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 ]
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.

[/ QUOTE ]

You stipulated that it shouldn't be considered because if we refuse both will be killed. That's not a good enough reason for some of us, so if you don't want it to be considered, ask the question differently.

[ QUOTE ]
I could have said there were two burning buildings and you could only save one occupant.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well, you didn't.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, because animals are living creatures who feel pain and are capable of suffering.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's funny how you say an animal is just a possession on par with a watch, and the very next post you say animals are living creatures who feel. Don't fret, logical consistency is obviously not a prerequisite for this forum.