Justifiable?

[Phoenix]

Why? Why is saving the many better than saving the one?

 

[KrytenKoro]

Because you said there was no other reason to care, besides a quantative difference. If saving lives is the ultimate goal, as the question posits, then that is the answer.

Don't ask me to elaborate on this answer - the assumptions the question posits go against my own, so I will not try to defend this answer. I am just putting forth that if this question was given on a math test, that would be the answer.

 

[Phoenix]

However, after 6 pages, we have agreed that this is not as simple as a math test.

I'll give the example I was unwilling to answer. Say the "one" was a 5-year old. And say you don't have a gun, you have a blunt rock to use.

 

[KrytenKoro]

Am I allowed to use my own morals, or do I have to stick to those given by the problem?

If the former, than there is no action necessary, barring an effort to convince any who reject goodness and glory in destruction and hatred to reverse their path.

If the latter, then you crush the head of the 5-year old with the rock, and it is still a math problem, no matter how you try to assauge your conscience.

 

[Phoenix]

Explain your second paragraph again?

 

[KrytenKoro]

I just looked at my post again and noticed that I worded it badly enough that even I have trouble understanding it. To elaborate:

If I am allowed to use my personal beliefs to answer this question, then no action on my part is necessary in the situation given. The only action I can think of needing to perform is in performing dialogue with any individuals of either side (the 100,000, or the 1) in the case that said individuals reject goodness and glorify evil. There is no need for me to save anyone's mortal life - merely to do all I can to make sure they receive immortal life by embracing good.

If I am only allowed to use the givens of the problem to solve the situation, then the age of the 1 does not matter - all that matters is the net lives saved, whether or not they die 10 seconds later, or 100 years.
If I save the child, then there is a net lives saved of -99,999.
If I kill the child, then there is a net lives saved of 99,999.
99,999 > -99,999, so I choose the second option, and kill the kid with any means available.

Many people kill for many reasons, many of whom are sound of mind and body. Yet it is thoughtlessness that is so often the bane of others. Do not be so quick to judge murder and death as the subjects only the mentally impared are skilled in.

What he was saying is that only an insane person would kill FOR NO REASON. Thus, contradicting your whole "many people" spiel. He never once said that murder is ONLY committed by the insane, only that ONLY the insane commit it without reason.

The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

Every time I have seen someone "reject" this line, they actually embrace it in their answer to the question: assuming the "importance" of the individual to be killed, etc.
The line is not "the LIVES of the many", it is "the NEEDS of the many" Thus, using this assumption of morality, you would kill 100,000 hobos to save one politician, if the many needed that one politician more than they needed the 100,000 hobos.
Of course, without being omniscient, it is impossible to know how important anyone is, as we don't live time backwards. Therefore, it is unreasonable to bring up the point at all, unless to illustrate that weighing the lives from a secular humanist view and comparing their ages, or similar qualifications, is unreasonable.

I posit this: Using a secular, humanist approach, Why is saving any of the lives important? Death is inevitable, so preserving life reasoning is invalid. Entropy is inevitable, so greatest impact reasoning is invalid. Suffering is inevitable, and totally uncontrollable, so least suffering reasoning is invalid. Furthermore, in this system, the only non-relative morality is biological, or "survival of species" morality. Therefore, it doesn't matter how you kill the one, or what the one means to you.

I suggest that none of the lives are important under a purely secular view.
Under a spiritual view, I posit the same question. For religions that believe in an afterlife, or some form of an immortal soul, the mortal death is, again, unimportant, so there is no need to save anyone from earthly death.

If anyone can show why the lives even need to be saved, please do. Also, make sure to state what morality system you are using as an assumption.

 

[Geocillin]

I'd like to bring another situation into the mix if possible. It is "similar" to the first. My Psychology/Civics teacher presented it to us.
here it is if i'm allowed to post this

In 1842, a ship struck an iceberg and more than 30 survivors were crowded into a lifeboat intended to hold 7. As a storm threatened, it became obvious that the lifeboat would have to be lightened if anyone were to survive.

The captain reasoned that the right thing to do in this situation was to force some individuals to go over the side and drown. Such an action, he reasoned, was not unjust to those thrown overboard, for they would have drowned anyway. If he did nothing, however, he would be responsible for the deaths of those whom he could have saved.

Some people opposed the captain's decision. They claimed that if nothing were done and everyone died as a result, no one would be responsible for these deaths. On the other hand, if the captain attempted to save some, he could do so only by killing others and their deaths would be his responsibility; this would be worse than doing nothing and letting all die.

The captain rejected this reasoning. Since the only possibility for rescue required great efforts of rowing, the captain decided that the weakest would have to be sacrificed. In this situation it would be absurd, he thought, to decide by drawing lots who should be thrown overboard. As it turned out, after days of hard rowing, the survivors were rescued and the captain was tried for his action.

1) If you had been on the jury, how would you have decided?
2) What are your reasons for this decision?
3) What ethical model did you use to arrive at the decision? Explain.
4) How would you respond to another jury member's decision that was not in agreement with yours? (no personal attacks!) Justify your response.

 

[cboy305]

Is sacraficing our own lives to save the 100,000 an option.

 

[Phoenix]

No, it isn't. That would be pointless.

 

[cboy305]

Is sacraficing our own lives to save the 100,000 an option.

Sorry, I messed up my question. Is sacraficing our own lives to save both the 100,000 and the one innocent person an option.

 

[Hidden]

Bah. Can *you* remember what was I disagreeing about?

... that's not the point.

Surely you recognize the very real and proven advantage summarization would bring you, no?

I acknowledge the advantage it would prove to those who read my posts...

I disagree. I had a very real connection to Santa Claus back when I was short and stupid.

Quite right!; however, tell me what value Santa Claus has for you now.

The value only appears when the friend acknowledges the person and forms the connection. Without that connection, if the person doesn't value himself, who is there to value him?

I'll attempt to address this further on.

What is the value of 100,000 dollars if all humans are dead?

The actual money itself? Precisely the same as it was when there were still humans and a thriving economy--it has not changed in any way. However, without humans, there is no longer that "determined value" which we, as individuals, assume through connection. In that aspect, your point stands.

Then why doesn't the same apply to the person himself?

Allow me to attempt an analogy, as wonderful my history is with such devices. What, to my opinion, is simply another method of observing the question of value, both as it arguably "is" and as we determine it, is in comparing it to the scientific concept of energy.

First, existence is necessary--there must exist a ball for the ball to fall, to bounce, to roll, et cetera. In simple physics, our only concern and measurement of energy is when it changes--when the ball is falling, bouncing, rolling, or, to take all these actions and others into one term, interacting. It is always through the interaction of the ball and other objects/forces that we establish our determinations of its "energy."

Despite this, acknowledgment of the object's necessity takes form in a "pseudo-measurement," that concept of potential energy. It is primarily "by virtue of its presence, the ball can be acted upon and can act on others." It is generally by virtue of being a part of a mechanical system that this concept of energy is even acknowledged, but that is primarily based upon the purpose for which it is being used.

Almost needless to explicate, my new interpretation of previous posts is as follows: one's determination of value is defined largely under the same system as one's determination of energy--by virtue of interaction; however, a necessity for this interaction itself must be acknowledged by a concept very similar to that of potential energy--in a phrase, it could be called "potential virtue" if that seems more reasonable than previous assertions.

The analogy is not exact, but this is a trial run of it.

Why does recognition automatically confer value?

It doesn't. Existence does; actually, existence "is" to my argument. The mention of recognition was only to forestall a potential existential problem--that of determining existence before value. I was attempting to spare you the discussion on that subject.

It does, actually. It proves me wrong, and makes my ideas hypothetical thought experiments. If all humans value their lives at least a bit, then they have value.

How about vegetables, though? Dead people? Imaginary beings?

Actually, I would like to start on the group of people I mentioned earlier, that of suicidal individuals. I think it reasonable to say that, in certain cases, they do not value their lives at all, and thereby see no reason to consciously attempt to preserve them; in certain cases, they make conscious efforts to end them. The question I really meant to impose by this example was this--why do they have to make a conscious effort? Entropy is easier than enthalpy; shouldn't the individual simply have the ability to "stop living", to fall apart at will? To an extent this can happen--people can "waste away" even without a physical malady. However, it isn't the natural course as we can see it; the living do not have to constantly be on guard against the possibility that they will simply stop living, that their very structure will cease to be in the form that it is. It is not even an issue of determination, simply one of existence.

But to address your specific models. First for vegetables: in keeping to the argument based upon existence, I would say yes; this is, however, an area where the human determination of value and my base determination of value may differ, and the question is which should be followed in discussing whether or not to maintain the vegetative person's life. That is a question not so easily resolved. Another fascinating aspect, however, is revealed in recent psychological studies which suggest that the vegetative state might not be so "unconscious" as we originally assumed; a recent case (I believe it was last December) showed that a woman in a fully vegetative state actually had brain activities remarkably similar to those of a healthy human adult.

Dead people: eh, here we come to a snag, at least to my model of the separation between existence based value and human determination of value. The thing is, existence is not limited to life; this becomes a bigger problem when one starts pondering the law of conservation of energy. I have thus far attempted to simplify the problem by effectively putting life on its own plain of existence--this isn't strictly in keeping to the actual principle of the matter however. The only answer, even temporary, I have is this--the dead person is not the person that he was in life, primarily by virtue of loss of brain activity; human determination does become mixed in with existence determination in that we determine existence in things as they are; we breathe in molecules of Julius Caesar every day, but don't think of it as such because, to our sensibilities, Julius Caesar no longer exists. These same sensibilities hold true for any dead person.

Imaginary beings: no value.

Survival instinct, most like.

Ah yes, that mysterious drive of all drives.


Nice to see you in Intel, Kryten.

If I am allowed to use my personal beliefs to answer this question, then no action on my part is necessary in the situation given. The only action I can think of needing to perform is in performing dialogue with any individuals of either side (the 100,000, or the 1) in the case that said individuals reject goodness and glorify evil. There is no need for me to save anyone's mortal life - merely to do all I can to make sure they receive immortal life by embracing good.

This is a fair enough rationale, but it does necessitate a belief in an afterlife such as you describe (obviously). Would you have a response to any of those, the one or any of the 100,000, who do not share you faith in this regard? "Trust me"?

Also, just because the question begs to be asked, if I see a man whom I know to be a good, upright Christian in danger of drowning, should I attempt to help him?

If I am only allowed to use the givens of the problem to solve the situation, then the age of the 1 does not matter - all that matters is the net lives saved, whether or not they die 10 seconds later, or 100 years.
If I save the child, then there is a net lives saved of -99,999.
If I kill the child, then there is a net lives saved of 99,999.
99,999 > -99,999, so I choose the second option, and kill the kid with any means available.

There was no specified moral principle for the given problem, and so even the preservation of lives is open to question, as you address below. However, you state that, given the problem and not working off of a belief in the afterlife, you would go for the net lives saved, correct?

Every time I have seen someone "reject" this line, they actually embrace it in their answer to the question: assuming the "importance" of the individual to be killed, etc.
The line is not "the LIVES of the many", it is "the NEEDS of the many" Thus, using this assumption of morality, you would kill 100,000 hobos to save one politician, if the many needed that one politician more than they needed the 100,000 hobos.

One can "reject" that line simply be determining their course of action by a coin toss. Needs outweigh nothing; action and reaction is what is discussed here.

Of course, without being omniscient, it is impossible to know how important anyone is, as we don't live time backwards. Therefore, it is unreasonable to bring up the point at all, unless to illustrate that weighing the lives from a secular humanist view and comparing their ages, or similar qualifications, is unreasonable.

Quite true.

I posit this: Using a secular, humanist approach, Why is saving any of the lives important? Death is inevitable, so preserving life reasoning is invalid. Entropy is inevitable, so greatest impact reasoning is invalid. Suffering is inevitable, and totally uncontrollable, so least suffering reasoning is invalid. Furthermore, in this system, the only non-relative morality is biological, or "survival of species" morality. Therefore, it doesn't matter how you kill the one, or what the one means to you.

I suggest that none of the lives are important under a purely secular view.
Under a spiritual view, I posit the same question. For religions that believe in an afterlife, or some form of an immortal soul, the mortal death is, again, unimportant, so there is no need to save anyone from earthly death.

If anyone can show why the lives even need to be saved, please do. Also, make sure to state what morality system you are using as an assumption.

Ignoring, for the moment, my standing argument with Phoenix on a related subject, I will not be currently attempting to argue that any lives need or should (to my opinion the more relevant question) be saved; I also will not bring a specific stance against it at this point. I do, however, bring to you the same question I brought to Phoenix--if this is the judgment, upon what basis do humans consciously attempt to preserve life and upon what basis does life naturally attempt to preserve itself? Is there potentially an argument in the answer to either of the above questions?

I'd like to bring another situation into the mix if possible. It is "similar" to the first. My Psychology/Civics teacher presented it to us.

The "resolution" to the scenario your teacher presents is essentially the same as that I described on the original problem--the issue must be addressed in order by what the captain can do, the ethics of the possible actions, and the responsibility of the likely results. The only complications are (a) we must also address the potential actions of those others in the lifeboat, (b) the ethics factor of the decision would possibly take on a more prominent role simply by numerical increase, and (c) responsibility is more complex with the unlikely potential of survival outside of the lifeboat.

I do not agree with the captain's reasoning on the grounds that he could let them all stay in the boat and not account himself responsible because they all would eventually die anyway.

To briefly address the questions:
1) the captain is guilty of murder or manslaughter, beyond question, though the decision of which is left to personal judgment. I personally would work for the charge of voluntary manslaughter in the given situation.
2) he willfully put people into a situation where their death was almost assured; this is determination by law. However, I would attempt for manslaughter in viewing the situation in which the man was placed and his "overall motive," if such a thing can really be analyzed.
3) the model is provided adequate description on page 4, post 50.
4) I will wait until I hear actual disagreement before moving further on this.


Darn it, another long post. I'm just no good at this "summarization" thing.

 

[Phoenix]

... that's not the point.

I rest my case.

I acknowledge the advantage it would prove to those who read my posts...

Thus bringing more people to these discussions. And allowing my to remember them.

Quite right!; however, tell me what value Santa Claus has for you now.

He's pretty useful on debates.

Regardless, the connection existed.

ball analogy

This interaction of the person, to what are you applying it to? Human interaction or the person simply interacting with anything on the world?

It doesn't. Existence does; actually, existence "is" to my argument. The mention of recognition was only to forestall a potential existential problem--that of determining existence before value. I was attempting to spare you the discussion on that subject.

Existence of what? The consciousness?

Dead people: eh, here we come to a snag, at least to my model of the separation between existence based value and human determination of value. The thing is, existence is not limited to life; this becomes a bigger problem when one starts pondering the law of conservation of energy. I have thus far attempted to simplify the problem by effectively putting life on its own plain of existence--this isn't strictly in keeping to the actual principle of the matter however. The only answer, even temporary, I have is this--the dead person is not the person that he was in life, primarily by virtue of loss of brain activity; human determination does become mixed in with existence determination in that we determine existence in things as they are; we breathe in molecules of Julius Caesar every day, but don't think of it as such because, to our sensibilities, Julius Caesar no longer exists. These same sensibilities hold true for any dead person.

Ah, but can you say that Julius Caesar has no value? That Gandhi, Einstein or Darwin have no value?

Imaginary beings: no value.

What, are you kidding me? Imaginary beings move the world.

 

[Hidden]

Thus bringing more people to these discussions. And allowing my to remember them.

Why would I want either of these? I'm content with those discussion partners capable of reading more than five sentences at a time without getting lost, and we've already discussed the advantages of your own forgetfulness--but that was awhile ago.

Regardless, the connection existed.

Answer the question, and then I'll get back to this point--what value does Santa Claus hold for you now?

ball analogy

That doesn't even count as summarization. That's cut and paste.

This interaction of the person, to what are you applying it to? Human interaction or the person simply interacting with anything on the world?

For our purposes, human interaction. This is how we determine value, no?

Existence of what? The consciousness?

The being, the object, the existent. Consciousness is that which allows us to be aware of it. Simply enough, that item which we are determining the value of. That is the existence which is necessary, which is synonymous with value.

Ah, but can you say that Julius Caesar has no value? That Gandhi, Einstein or Darwin have no value?

Currently? No. The value has been transferred, and now lies in those capable of using or even just interacting with the results of what they did. Those men are dead--Caesar will conquer, Gandhi will teach, Einstein will postulate, and Darwin will challenge no more.

What, are you kidding me? Imaginary beings move the world.

Do they now? I didn't know you were the mystical sort.

 

[Phoenix]

Why would I want either of these? I'm content with those discussion partners capable of reading more than five sentences at a time without getting lost, and we've already discussed the advantages of your own forgetfulness--but that was awhile ago.

Few months ago, you were angry that your topics went to the second page.

Answer the question, and then I'll get back to this point--what value does Santa Claus hold for you now?

Zilch-o.

That doesn't even count as summarization. That's cut and paste.

It serves its purpose.

For our purposes, human interaction. This is how we determine value, no?

Weren't we talking about a guy who has no interaction? Hence, I said had no value?

The being, the object, the existent. Consciousness is that which allows us to be aware of it. Simply enough, that item which we are determining the value of. That is the existence which is necessary, which is synonymous with value.

Consciousness =/= existence. Rocks exist, and I can have a pet rock.

Currently? No. The value has been transferred, and now lies in those capable of using or even just interacting with the results of what they did. Those men are dead--Caesar will conquer, Gandhi will teach, Einstein will postulate, and Darwin will challenge no more.

Ok, I can agree with this.

Do they now? I didn't know you were the mystical sort.

And by that, I mean their fan clubs have murder sprees every couple of centuries, which they wouldn't do if they had no relationship with said imaginary being.

Which brings about the question: does God have value?

 

[KrytenKoro]

This is a fair enough rationale, but it does necessitate a belief in an afterlife such as you describe (obviously). Would you have a response to any of those, the one or any of the 100,000, who do not share you faith in this regard? "Trust me"?

Also, just because the question begs to be asked, if I see a man whom I know to be a good, upright Christian in danger of drowning, should I attempt to help him?

Probably - but you don't need to.

Which brings about the question: does God have value?

Yes, but you already know my consideration of his existence.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Yes, I would kill that many people to save 100,000.

And I would kill The Pope to save 1 other person. he holds no special meaning to me.

But my friends or family, no.

 

[Phoenix]

Then you are selfish, no? Because a friend has a special meaning to you, because he affects you, you'd let 100,000 die.

 

[Tyler Durden]

Note that I didn't say my friend wouldn't move.

Assuming he wouldn't, unfortunately, I WOULD kill him/her.

I would then proceed to go emo for the rest of my life and jump off skyscrapers, but you know, that's not the point.