Deep Thoughts, With DD: No-Win

[rue]

A philosophical question of ethics.

Say you and a group are hiking deep in the Andes mountains of South America.  You come upon a remote camp which you think is a checkpoint station for the trail, but that is not the case.  A group of political radicals surround you with their assault rifles and take you and your group prisoner.  The group's leader, maddened by repeated narcotic use, accuses you of being government spies.  You of course tell him he is mistaken and that you are just travelers.  He tells you that you must prove you are not spies.  As government militia members would never kill one of their own even under pressure from captors, knowing the penalty for such an act is death, the leader points to you and hands you a small handgun.  He instructs you to execute a member of your group.  If you do, he will spare the lives of you and the remaining group members.  If you do not, you will all die. 

   Now you are one person with a handgun.  They are many rebels with rifles.  Rambo-like alternatives are not an option--you and your group will not survive.  Suicide proves nothing to the leader so it is also not an option. 

What would you do?

What do you believe is the moral option?

[vege^]

don't shoot. I would much rather die than kill someone.

[joel]

give the gun to someone else and have them shoot me.

[Zeradul]

Stall until his narcotics wear off?

In the meantime start poking holes in his ridiculous logic to the point that his henchmen realize he's a fraud.  I mean what kind of nonsense is it to think that a secret government agents wouldn't kill one of their own, but regular citizens would?  LOL...

By the way, which narcotics make you mad? 

There's always alternatives.

Plus, paranoid crazy people wouldn't start believing you after you killed yourself or a friend anyways.

----------------

The more direct version of this ethical question is this: (and we've discussed it here before)

There's a train going down the tracks and it is about to come to a 'Y'  It is currently headed for a family of 5 with three young children, and for whatever reason, cannot physically get off the tracks.  You could push a lever to divert the train, but it would be diverted to an old man in a wheelchair stuck on the tracks.  You are the only person around, and so there is noone else who can help, and you are way too far away to get there in time, and the decision is yours.  Do nothing and the family dies?  Or act and save the family, and kill the old man.

[Blade]

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few?

[mystic]

I'm selfish and your dead... sorry 

[QB3RT]

i'll ask him to share some of his narcotics

[kai]

I'd shoot Zera

[rue]

Stall until his narcotics wear off?

In the meantime start poking holes in his ridiculous logic to the point that his henchmen realize he's a fraud.  I mean what kind of nonsense is it to think that a secret government agents wouldn't kill one of their own, but regular citizens would?  LOL...

By the way, which narcotics make you mad? 

There's always alternatives.

Plus, paranoid crazy people wouldn't start believing you after you killed yourself or a friend anyways.

----------------

The more direct version of this ethical question is this: (and we've discussed it here before)

There's a train going down the tracks and it is about to come to a 'Y'  It is currently headed for a family of 5 with three young children, and for whatever reason, cannot physically get off the tracks.  You could push a lever to divert the train, but it would be diverted to an old man in a wheelchair stuck on the tracks.  You are the only person around, and so there is noone else who can help, and you are way too far away to get there in time, and the decision is yours.  Do nothing and the family dies?  Or act and save the family, and kill the old man.

No, no, no.

This is a question concerning whether it is moral to consider the needs of the many before the needs of the few.  I didn't ask about any trains, the side effects of narcotics, or old men. 

Allow me to provide you with a picture representation of how you can inquire about such things:



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------



------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Blade]

To clarify my answer, I would shoot somebody and save the rest.

Worst case scenario, we're all dead... thus you could say that I'm about preserving what I can. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

In fact, that logic doesn't even apply because the "few" in this case is dead either way.

[Ruckus]

hahahahahahaaaaaa


DD  FTW !!!!

[DragonMage]

hahahaha

POST OF THE YEAR (DD's Instructional Post)

[DragonMage]

There's a train going down the tracks and it is about to come to a 'Y'  It is currently headed for a family of 5 with three young children, and for whatever reason, cannot physically get off the tracks.  You could push a lever to divert the train, but it would be diverted to an old man in a wheelchair stuck on the tracks.  You are the only person around, and so there is noone else who can help, and you are way too far away to get there in time, and the decision is yours.  Do nothing and the family dies?  Or act and save the family, and kill the old man.

LOL what kind of train comes with no brakes, seriously. And show me a family who doesn't know how to get out of their car (or whatever they are in) to avoid a train. It would have to be a family of fish or an equivalent species devoid of making logical decisions. Or maybe the family is on some of the narcotics from the first scenario LOLOLOLO.

Don't EVEN get me started on the statistical probability of this situation. Come on, people stuck on tracks in two different places that HAPPEN to be on the Y division of the same train track? It is entirely laughable.

Not to MENTION, what am I doing near a lever that operates the tracks for a train? You'd probably need some special clearance AND work for the company who runs the locomotives or owns the track. I work for an engineering company. There's no way I could get to the lever.

And hey, let's consider if an old man is riding around in a wheelchair, this situation must be occurring in a very public place (being that if he's in a wheelchair, he probably does not venture far from cities or populated areas.) Even if this whole scenario DID present itself to me, I'd just wait for a good samaritan to move him out of the way, and then I'd divert the train in his direction because it would then be clear.

See? It's pretty simple, really.

[Mnementh]

Oh man...funny shit!

As far as the scenario that DD presented...I'd have to say that I'd try to quickly figure out who to shoot and shoot that person to save all the others. 

While I don't necessarily believe in the idea of "the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few," I think that is flawed simply because innate value of the "many" may very well be less than that of the "few".  But then, who the hell do I think I am to ascribe value to anyone other than myself...but, in a situation like the one that DD suggests, you are thrust into the role of HAVING to make that decision, regardless of how qualified you are to be making such decisions.  Although, if I was with a group people that annoyed the shit out of me, I'd just shoot them all so the political radicals can save some bullets.

[rue]

Mnem accidentally deleted your post, Zera.  He thought there was an undo button.

Here is Zera's post from earlier today:

Allow me to provide you with a picture representation of how you can inquire about such things:

Oh Man, A new thread, what an idea!!!  But wait, I was on topic, I posed the more common version of the same ethical question.  Derb.

DD is trying to show he's got me blocked.  Which is why he posted that 'how to post a thread' tutorial.  Sigh.  I mean no offense DD, and never have.  If my thoughts on religion and politics have offended you, then I apologize, but they are nothing but ideas.  They are not intended to burn bridges or offend.  They are just meant to be thought about, and as a result, grow from. :/

And if you're REALLY still holding a grudge about football from last year, then, LOL I will apologize again for that, but man, you need to let it go.

[rue]

Three prominent schools of ethics come to mind when I think of this question.  I'll go through their choices and why one by one.

School: Utilitarianism
Arch-Philosopher: John Stuart Mill, British (1806-1873)
Choice:  Shooting one is moral.
Why:

 Making a decision that would cause the death of one life is always moral when it saves the lives of many.  When faced with a choice, one must weight the possible outcomes, and decide on the outcome which will create the greatest amount of happiness (or utiles) for all.  The survival of the group creates more utiles than the survival of none, therefore the one must be sacrificed for the greater good. 


School: Categorical Imperatives
Arch-Philosopher: Immanuel Kant, German (1724-1804)
Choice: Shooting is immoral.
Why:

  Since the person being sacrificed can no longer live, being an agent in their death is immoral.   When faced with a choice, one must consider if the action will be seen as ethical to all those the choice will affect.  If it is deemed unethical to even one, then the decision cannot be moral.   Even if one of the group is gallant enough to say "pick me, so that the rest of you may live", the decision to shoot that person is still immoral because that person would rather the situation had not presented itself in the first place.

School: Existentialism
Arch-Philosopher: Søren Kierkegaard, Danish (1813-1855)
Choice: It doesn't matter, there is no defined morality.
Why:

 Wether you are an atheist like Nietzsche or a person of faith like Kierkegaard, there is no universal law of morality created either by God or inherent to the universe.  Therefore anyone who would critique whichever decision you made is merely speaking about ethics which are important to them.  Such people may think that they are informing others about what most certainly should have been done either by an undeniable truth of the universe or because of what God wishes.  But to existentialists, there words are benign and meaningless because no such rules exist. 

It's not to say that Existentialists are absolute anarchists and believe that ethics do not exist--they all had morals which were important to them.  The "universal" portion of "universal ethics" is their hangup. 



Except for one rare case, I wouldn't shoot.  As far as I'm concerned, we all died as soon as the leader made his ultimatum.  I would shoot the leader and then accept my transition into Heaven, Hell or oblivion. 

The only loophole I would be open to is if part of our group is a family, and one of the parents/grandparents etc (adults basically) asked me to take his/her life so that the lives of his/her family would be spared.  Kant would say that act is immoral, but I think it would be immoral to deny that person's right to offer his/her life for the lives of loved ones.

[rue]

Allow me to provide you with a picture representation of how you can inquire about such things:

Oh Man, A new thread, what an idea!!!  But wait, I was on topic, I posed the more common version of the same ethical question.  Derb.

DD is trying to show he's got me blocked.  Which is why he posted that 'how to post a thread' tutorial.  Sigh.  I mean no offense DD, and never have.  If my thoughts on religion and politics have offended you, then I apologize, but they are nothing but ideas.  They are not intended to burn bridges or offend.  They are just meant to be thought about, and as a result, grow from. :/

And if you're REALLY still holding a grudge about football from last year, then, LOL I will apologize again for that, but man, you need to let it go.

Your question is different than mine.  Yours has the added variable of asking if it is alright to alter fate (if there is such thing as fate) in order to produce a perceived, favorable outcome.  I'm not curious about what people think about fate.  Maybe you are.

 I took offense to you running into this thread and making a mockery of the question.  You treated it like an essay question to a wilderness survival exam instead of an ethical conundrum.  Then, knowing that we have sparred over illegal drugs in the past, you implied that I am ignorant about drug side effects by further implying that no drugs cause madness.  Well Wiki  Jimsonweed.  This scenario is loosely based on a scene in a Tom Clancy book which I have altered a bit.  In the book, the antagonist drinks tea made from Jimsonweed. 

Then, you replaced my question you attempted to poke holes into with your "new and improved' question.  You don't see the arrogance in that?

[Zeradul]

I now do see the slight difference in our questions, I did not see it before.  To me, it is still the same moral dilemma.

I took offense to you running into this thread and making a mockery of the question.

  Okay! I see!  I was not attempting to mock the question because it was yours, I just thought it a silly scenario.  To think through a question like this I try to put myself in the shoes of the subject, and reason it out.  Once I had done that I was overcome by the absurdity of the situation, and my response was and is, my previous post.  And you have to understand, I believe all people are inherently good, even those maddened by drugs, and thus, I would be able to appeal to his humanity and ideally have him let us prove we weren't government agents.  Plus, I'd be able to reason with him that I hate the government too! and he'd let us go.   And I know that's not what you're asking, but its just how my mind works.  I don't even try to unravel Gordian Knots if I can't first find a way to chop 'em in half.

Then, knowing that we have sparred over illegal drugs in the past, you implied that I am ignorant about drug side effects by further implying that no drugs cause madness.

Okay, I never for a second thought you made that scenario up.  I assumed it was from your philosophy class, or some other philosophical writings you had read.  I swear I never once thought you had made it up, just as I never imagined you made up Theseus's ship.  And as far as narcotics making someone mad, I just thought it was phrased in a funny way.

Then, you replaced my question you attempted to poke holes into with your "new and improved' question.  You don't see the arrogance in that?

  Well, it seemed to me to be right on topic, and it is true, I could have waited to add it to the discussion.  But it seemed completely harmless and so I added it in.  I swear, no arrogance was intended, and I don't know what to tell you here.  I wasn't attempting to one up you or anything of the sort, in the least!  I like these threads of yours, I just wish they came more often!  The last thing I want is to hinder or impinge on your contributions here.  I think these discussions have the very likely potential to be the pinnacle of those we've had in our community.  I wish Mnem and others would contribute them as well!  That was the seminal idea of this forum, and I think it's great!

And I sense that you still might have your doubts, but (and maybe this is the root of the problem here! ) I never stake my ideas as a part of me.  I think it is important to not let someone's critique of one of my ideas offend me.  Because, a person is not tied to their ideas, ideas are temporary, and the moment I take offense to someone who bashed my idea, that is the moment I begin to become angry or upset, and cease to consider the topic rationally.  All of a sudden it is personal, as opposed to just the issue at hand.

I think everyone has to recognize that ideas are just that, ideas.  If an idea of mine is wrong or false, then no big deal, I just count my losses as to what extent that idea led me astray, and move on, with a new idea in tow.  And I don't stop questioning that new idea ever!  Not only may my view may change again, but as I grow and age, the truth for ME might change drastically.  (e.g. Drugs should be legalized, but being a parent might distort my view of the topic-although I doubt it )  Any stance or idea not challenged isn't worth anything at all, because there's no reason to believe if it is true or not, and by the same token, there's no way to know if there isn't some competing idea out there that is vastly superior in some way.

And so I guess what I am saying is always assume any sort of serious discussion is not personal.  Ideas are discussed yes, and some ideas will be more highly valued than others, yes, that's fine, but noone should tie themselves to an idea.  That just distorts the clear view of things, and makes it ever so much harder to think clearly about that issue.

And it never crossed my mind that any offense could be taken, as I did not expect that you had written that nor had any ties to it.  It is quite liberating to step into any sort of discussion, or any sort of mental consideration with the idea that not only are your current views fallible, but they could be completely false.  Once you separate yourself from your ideas, you have only your ego left to contend with when admitting you were wrong, and I find my ego doesn't care about being wrong anymore because I value the pursuit of knowledge ahead of what I already know and believe to be true.  Finding out I am wrong is a wonderful thing because that is evidence that there are still vast margins that are unknown, and not understood, and THAT is what I am looking to find.

And don't take this to be a lecture or a critique, but merely an explanation of where I'm coming from, and how I got here.  I very much appreciate your last post as you calmly explained to me what I believe you see as obvious.  I apologize for interjecting so quickly into your thread, and i will be more careful about doing it in the future, but in all honesty it was just a post I wrote in 8 minutes and didn't think twice about it.  Cue a jeer about long posts.