Two Plus Two Older Archives  

Go Back   Two Plus Two Older Archives > Other Topics > Science, Math, and Philosophy

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:05 AM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 241
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:18 AM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:34 AM
sexdrugsmoney sexdrugsmoney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stud forum
Posts: 256
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:40 AM
David Sklansky David Sklansky is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Posts: 241
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 10-15-2005, 05:51 AM
sexdrugsmoney sexdrugsmoney is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Stud forum
Posts: 256
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 10-15-2005, 07:07 AM
w_alloy w_alloy is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: waiting for winter to SKI
Posts: 75
Default 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?
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 10-15-2005, 07:13 AM
chezlaw chezlaw is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: London, England
Posts: 58
Default 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
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 10-15-2005, 07:19 AM
mosquito mosquito is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 45
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 10-15-2005, 07:23 AM
IronUnkind IronUnkind is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 34
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 10-15-2005, 07:30 AM
DougShrapnel DougShrapnel is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 55
Default 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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:28 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.