Hypothetical moral quandary

[Lheticus]

I think this might be frowned upon, but since it doesn't have anything to do with the Giant's works or a widespread social issue, I give it a good chance it won't be.

Say you have a villain and a hero. The hero confronts the villain, but the villain tells him he just activated a bomb that will go off in a crowded place and surely kill dozens of people, but in a room on the other side of the lair, there's a deactivation mechanism that the hero would easily be able to reach in time even with mooks in his way--but this would allow the villain to escape. The hero responds at first by saying he's not going to allow the villain to escape, because he'll just keep killing and generally doing evil things if he stops the bomb here. The VILLAIN then says: "Well...are you REALLY willing to let people die just to stop me?"

The quandary is this: Say the hero says basically he WILL still stop him and refuse to go after the bomb instead. On whose hands is the blood of the people killed by the bomb? Personally, I'd say the villain full stop--he's the one that's willing to kill just to get what he wants or save his own neck. If he didn't put people in danger, they wouldn't NEED to be saved. However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

[Driderman]

I think this might be frowned upon, but since it doesn't have anything to do with the Giant's works or a widespread social issue, I give it a good chance it won't be.

Say you have a villain and a hero. The hero confronts the villain, but the villain tells him he just activated a bomb that will go off in a crowded place and surely kill dozens of people, but in a room on the other side of the lair, there's a deactivation mechanism that the hero would easily be able to reach in time even with mooks in his way--but this would allow the villain to escape. The hero responds at first by saying he's not going to allow the villain to escape, because he'll just keep killing and generally doing evil things if he stops the bomb here. The VILLAIN then says: "Well...are you REALLY willing to let people die just to stop me?"

The quandary is this: Say the hero says basically he WILL still stop him and refuse to go after the bomb instead. On whose hands is the blood of the people killed by the bomb? Personally, I'd say the villain full stop--he's the one that's willing to kill just to get what he wants or save his own neck. If he didn't put people in danger, they wouldn't NEED to be saved. However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

In the interest of good drama, the blood is of course on the hands of the hero. He was provided a means to save innocent lives and choose instead to sacrifice them for what he perceived as the "greater good". True "heroes" don't sacrifice innocent, defenseless people like that, even if it means letting a villain get away.
Edit: And in RPGs, making the fault be on the villain quickly leads to a sort of "action-optimization" mentality where any sort of drama or no-win situations are being handwaved with a "well I had the best of intentions", which is rarely good for a game.

[Lheticus]

In the interest of good drama, the blood is of course on the hands of the hero. He was provided a means to save innocent lives and choose instead to sacrifice them for what he perceived as the "greater good". True "heroes" don't sacrifice innocent, defenseless people like that, even if it means letting a villain get away.
Edit: And in RPGs, making the fault be on the villain quickly leads to a sort of "action-optimization" mentality where any sort of drama or no-win situations are being handwaved with a "well I had the best of intentions", which is rarely good for a game.

All right...but what about real life? I'm not mentally equipped to provide an appropriate example for the application of this principle to the real world, but still, what then?

[Frozen_Feet]

Guilt and responsibility are different things. At no point is the hero guilty for the situation, but he's still responsible for people dying if he has a real choice in the matter.

The hero's problem is that he has two mutually-exclusive goals. Pursuing one in this case enforces negligence of the other. Overall evaluation of his choice depends on the strenght of his justification - namely, how likely is the villain to actually murder more people?

On one end of the spectrum we have the Joker, who will kill plenty more people on the drop of the hat if let loose, and on the other we have someone a bit like the Phantom Blot who only threatens people with death in order to escape. If their behaviour patterns are known, letting the former go free is probably worse than allowing a few people to die, where as in the latter case people are only guaranteed to die if the hero opts to stop the villain.

More generally, the question is: what's at risk if the Villain goes free?

[tomandtish]

The blood is on the hand of the villain. In the end, he's the one who chose to kill.

What you have here often shows up in the RPG forums as a common paladin problem (usually in threads talking about forcing a Paladin to fall). Do you stop the criminal (lawful) or save the innocent (good)? Is the potential future damage sufficient enough that you have to accept the current damage in order to stop it?

Heck, Roy could end up in this situation. Back in the beginning strips, it seems pretty apparent that if Xykon had threatened innocents in order to escape, Roy would save the innocents.

But let's say we're nearly at the final gate. Xykon has shown up, there's been a fight, and Xykon set's up one of these situations where X (let us say 100) innocents will die if Roy doesn't save them. Roy can save the innocents or fight Xykon. if he fights, he has a strong chance of winning (for whatever reason). If he saves the innocents, Xykon will make it to the gate and have time to do whatever he plans. And Roy knows this.

Which does he choose? Is he still working off of incomplete information (he didn't see what happened to Lauren and Co)? Does his decision change if the number of innocents goes up or down?

But the important thing is: Regardless of what Roy chooses, the blood is on Xykon's hands. He's the one who chose to kill. O'Chul sums it up best here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html).

[gr8artist]

Here's the thing: Morality is a social construct highly biased toward cultural values. It's not a tangible force, like in DnD.
Granted, some faiths and philosophies would say otherwise, but that's a result of their cultural values.

If a fanatic blows up a room full of people, the only actual change is that those people are dead and the building is destroyed.
Whether this is good, bad, horrendous, admirable, or any other adjective is based entirely on the opinions of the people who observe it or learn about it. If it's a lunatic blowing up children, then it's generally met with sadness and rage. If it's a government official taking out enemies of the state, then its often met with resentment on one side, but congratulations on the other.

So the problem isn't absolute. Its not whether the blood is on the villains hands or on the hero's. Its whether the hero FEELS like the blood is on his hands, and whether people choose to blame the hero or the villain. Fortunately for the hero, most courts and prosecutors would not hold him accountable, but would blame the villain. That is, of course, unless the death toll is particularly high and the villain is not brought to justice properly. If people don't get the closure they feel they deserve, they'll prosecute the hero anyway.

[Bulldog Psion]

Stop the bomb now and let the villain escape.

Actual, right-now life or death is more important than "if this guy lives, he might do something bad sometime." I mean, what if the villain trips on the way out and breaks his neck falling down the stairs? The hero's going to look like a real jackass if he lets a lot of people die for nothing.

It's sort of a reverse of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Or it's like Franklin's "it is better that 100 murderers go free than that one innocent man be hanged" (paraphrased).

Real people dying right now are more important than theoretical people maybe dying in the future. IMO.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Here's the thing: Morality is a social construct highly biased toward cultural values. It's not a tangible force, like in DnD.
Granted, some faiths and philosophies would say otherwise, but that's a result of their cultural values.

That's absolutism.

Social values construct morality, but they don't build it from nothing.

Society and culture is just one factor influencing an individual. An individual's choices are still individual.

If culture dictated morality, there would be no dissenters and no politics. People with similar beliefs form subcultures, but they have to be drawn into those subcultures by their individual personalities.

You say morality isn't a tangible force, but neither is culture.


I However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

Good guys don't blame themselves because they might be evil, rather the opposite.

One must be self critical in order to be good. If you can't examine yourself and see where you might be making mistakes, then you are likely to fall onto the wrong path.

[valadil]

Actual, right-now life or death is more important than "if this guy lives, he might do something bad sometime." I mean, what if the villain trips on the way out and breaks his neck falling down the stairs? The hero's going to look like a real jackass if he lets a lot of people die for nothing.


Agreed. Definitely letting people die is worse than maybe letting people die.

I actually have a problem with this type of moral quandary and I think they're inherently evil. I mean, they're fun to think about but the premise is that they're multiple choice. You have a limited selection of actions and need to choose the least evil. When you do so, whomever is asking the question finds another way to weigh the sides of what you're choosing between until they're roughly equal and you're left question whether it's better to act and kill N people or sit back and watch as N people die.

Anyway, my problem is that this conditions you to accept the multiple choices options. Instead of picking "c: other" and acting out an answer that solves both problems, you get used to the idea of accepting a lesser evil.

I've never put this idea to any kind of test outside of gaming. As a GM I like giving my players choices with lesser evil consequences. I like getting them to roleplay by figuring moral dilemmas that divide the party. I usually give them a few obvious options and secretly hope that they come up with an idealistic solution that solves all the problems without making a sacrifice. The players are so used to philosophical dilemmas and so eager to play characters who make hard choices that they don't bother thinking up better ways to solve the problems.

[Dienekes]

I'll be honest, for me it would depend on the villain. Joe Schmuck who rigged a bomb in his garage? No, disarm the bomb save the people. The freaking Joker, who kills hundreds of people as a joke, consistently and has proven time and again that nothing stops his kill spree? I'd probably deal with him and then suffer crippling guilt for the rest of my life.

Admittedly, since types like the Joker are nearly non-existent in the real world, I'd probably save the people.

[Lheticus]

Stop the bomb now and let the villain escape.

Actual, right-now life or death is more important than "if this guy lives, he might do something bad sometime." I mean, what if the villain trips on the way out and breaks his neck falling down the stairs? The hero's going to look like a real jackass if he lets a lot of people die for nothing.

It's sort of a reverse of a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.

Or it's like Franklin's "it is better that 100 murderers go free than that one innocent man be hanged" (paraphrased).

Real people dying right now are more important than theoretical people maybe dying in the future. IMO.


I'll be honest, for me it would depend on the villain. Joe Schmuck who rigged a bomb in his garage? No, disarm the bomb save the people. The freaking Joker, who kills hundreds of people as a joke, consistently and has proven time and again that nothing stops his kill spree? I'd probably deal with him and then suffer crippling guilt for the rest of my life.

Admittedly, since types like the Joker are nearly non-existent in the real world, I'd probably save the people.

I've posted both of these quotes since I see them as very interrelated. First to Bulldog Psion, the scenario I posited isn't "if this guy escapes he might do other bad things later" it's he WILL do other bad things later. I mean...in most fiction scenarios, which is really where my example is appropriate, there usually isn't much doubt that the Big Bad will continue killing/exploiting/generally delivering bad days to innocent people. To Dienekes, you definitely raise an interesting point--in the real world, Joker types are virtually non-existant, and honestly, I think in the real world the opportunities to bring someone to justice after the fact of such a "sadistic choice" are a lot more prevalent than in fiction--a factor I had not considered.

In general, I've received insight from this discussion that at the end of the day, whose hands the blood is on is probably not even the critical factor in such a scenario at all--DEFINITELY something I hadn't managed to consider. Thanks a bunch thus far!

[Ravens_cry]

Go save the people, but contact compatriots to try and stop the super-villain, or at least track them. Then, once everyone is saved, then you can help them going for the baddie.

[factotum]

But the important thing is: Regardless of what Roy chooses, the blood is on Xykon's hands. He's the one who chose to kill. O'Chul sums it up best here (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0547.html).

There's a critical difference in the situation there, though. O-Chul simply had no power to save the people on the tower, no matter what he did--he wasn't good enough at lying to fool Redcloak, and he couldn't escape. The situation as presented in the OP has the hero being perfectly capable of rescuing the people in the room with the bomb if he chooses to do so.

This is a Kobayashi Maru situation, I reckon--there *is* no right answer. Either choice the hero makes will have some bad consequences.

[Jay R]

The question asked is irrelevant. The question in front of the hero is not whether he or she will be blamed for their deaths, but whether to save lives.

Person A pushes person B (who cannot swim) into the river. The hero cannot be blamed, but he or she will try to rescue B.

Person C sets a house on fire. There is a baby on the second floor. The hero will try to save the baby.

The villain is not trying to tell the hero that the villain is blameless, and that the hero will have killed those victims. He is pointing out that the hero can choose to save them, but that capturing the villain will carry the consequence of leaving them to die.

It is simply untrue that the reason to save somebody's life is to avoid blame. The reason to save lives is to save them.

[shadow_archmagi]

Optimal solution is to maximize lives saved, minimize damage.

Multiply probability of future crimes by quantity of future crimes by magnitude of future crimes, compare to magnitude of present crime. Prevent whichever number is greater.

More data needed to make a conclusive choice at this point.

[Jayngfet]

False paradox. The hero hits the device then tracks down the villain immediately after. In such a short amount of time the only way the villain could get far is by having a convenient escape pod handy, and even those have limited fuel and the hero presumably has a vehicle of his own(having reached the lair somehow).

Not to mention a number of alternates available. If the hero has a gun on hand the resulting firefight won't be too long and if he hurries he can still do both. Or if he's got a capable party at his back they can split up or delegate as necessary, with the fastest of them running for the switch while the rest have their battle.

And again, even if the villain escapes his lead won't do much good. He'll leave tracks, or a trail of some kind, and with his M.O. and details left over in the base itself there's more than enough information to gain the upper hand even if he temporarily falls off the radar. Even in the event of any electronics shutting down the mooks in the base can be interrogated unless you're using 100% lethal instant death bullets exclusively, and contrary to popular belief mercenaries don't have much loyalty and terrorists aren't usually well thought out plan wise.

Assuming our hero has even the smallest amount of brains or resources it's basically a non-issue.

[Jormengand]

Assuming our hero has even the smallest amount of brains or resources it's basically a non-issue.

To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

In answer to the actual question, the technicalities of agency are irrelevant in the face of the actual benefit or deficit to people. If the villain escapes, working out whether or not he will actually do more damage than his bomb is basically the only worthwhile consideration.

[Lheticus]

The question asked is irrelevant. The question in front of the hero is not whether he or she will be blamed for their deaths, but whether to save lives.

Person A pushes person B (who cannot swim) into the river. The hero cannot be blamed, but he or she will try to rescue B.

Person C sets a house on fire. There is a baby on the second floor. The hero will try to save the baby.

The villain is not trying to tell the hero that the villain is blameless, and that the hero will have killed those victims. He is pointing out that the hero can choose to save them, but that capturing the villain will carry the consequence of leaving them to die.

It is simply untrue that the reason to save somebody's life is to avoid blame. The reason to save lives is to save them.

I followed you until you mentioned avoiding blame. The question isn't "who is blamed", it's "does intentionally failing to save lives in order to prevent even worse things from happening later, when there is plenty of reason to believe such things will happen later unless the opportunity to prevent them is taken here, itself constitute killing?"


False paradox. The hero hits the device then tracks down the villain immediately after. In such a short amount of time the only way the villain could get far is by having a convenient escape pod handy, and even those have limited fuel and the hero presumably has a vehicle of his own(having reached the lair somehow).

Not to mention a number of alternates available. If the hero has a gun on hand the resulting firefight won't be too long and if he hurries he can still do both. Or if he's got a capable party at his back they can split up or delegate as necessary, with the fastest of them running for the switch while the rest have their battle.

And again, even if the villain escapes his lead won't do much good. He'll leave tracks, or a trail of some kind, and with his M.O. and details left over in the base itself there's more than enough information to gain the upper hand even if he temporarily falls off the radar. Even in the event of any electronics shutting down the mooks in the base can be interrogated unless you're using 100% lethal instant death bullets exclusively, and contrary to popular belief mercenaries don't have much loyalty and terrorists aren't usually well thought out plan wise.

Assuming our hero has even the smallest amount of brains or resources it's basically a non-issue.

Then why does crap like I've posited here WORK all the time in fiction? :P


To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

In answer to the actual question, the technicalities of agency are irrelevant in the face of the actual benefit or deficit to people. If the villain escapes, working out whether or not he will actually do more damage than his bomb is basically the only worthwhile consideration.

So...Batman should have killed the Joker in The Dark Knight? I don't disagree, mind. Incidentally, and pretty much definitely off topic, what even HAPPENED to him after that movie?

[Jormengand]

So...Batman should have killed the Joker in The Dark Knight? I don't disagree, mind. Incidentally, and pretty much definitely off topic, what even HAPPENED to him after that movie?

Certainly. I don't know much about batman, but the Joker is one of those categorically-CE watch-the-world-burn types, and he always manages to elude everyone, so if you have the chance to take him down, you should take it.

[Driderman]

I think we need to differentiate between "hero" and "main character" here.
A hero doesn't sacrifice innocent lives on the expectation that it may prevent further loss down the line. A main character, sure, but not a "hero". Heroes are held to higher standards, a hero would save the innocents and then work tirelessly to prevent the villain from endangering further people, but never let civilians, or anyone really, die to convenience or "greater good". At least, that's how I see it.

[Brother Oni]

Incidentally, and pretty much definitely off topic, what even HAPPENED to him after that movie?

I believe there's an unfilmed scene in The Dark Knight Rises: Bane is breaking everybody out of Blackgate Prison and you see a close up of a prisoner's scarred mouth smiling as all the newly freed inmates rush into the corridor. One of Bane's henchmen reaches forward to open the door to let the prisoner out, but Banes stops him, saying "No. Not this one."
As they all leave, there's a close up of the prisoner's mouth again, only with a bigger smile.

Some checking doesn't corroborate my memory, so it may have been a bit of fan fiction or random musing I remember reading somewhere.
Other theories include the Joker being the sole inmate of Arkham Asylum after the Dent Act transferred most of the prisoners to Blackgate Prison, thus completely out of the loop for the last film.


I think we need to differentiate between "hero" and "main character" here.

Agreed. Someone like the Punisher wouldn't even bat an eyelid and just pull the trigger.

[Tengu_temp]

If the hero stops the villain here, the blood of the dead civilians is on his hands. I'm not saying he should be persecuted for it, and depending on the villain, this might be the preferable choice (if letting him go means he will certainly kill thousands, for example); but their blood is still on his hands. Because sometimes, heroism is hard.


To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

Seconded. If a thought experiment provides you with only two options, then don't try to weasel your way out of it. It's a thought experiment, not a real situation, its purpose is to show which of these two tough choices do you prefer.

[SiuiS]

It's rarely that clean. The guy who killed people – who planted the bomb and set it off – is at fault. The idea that the hero is at fault is based on villains being functionally amoral, set pieces and not people who make decisions. They frame the issue such that there is a clear and present danger and only the hero has any agency. That's bunk. The villain has choices and decisions too.

Of course, the correct answer is to kill the villain as swiftly as possible and then get to the bomb switch, or toss a rope over his neck and drag him, so you get to the switch and he doesn't escape... Or turnabout and rig a bomb on his escape vehicle and pull the same stuff.

[Bulldog Psion]

I've posted both of these quotes since I see them as very interrelated. First to Bulldog Psion, the scenario I posited isn't "if this guy escapes he might do other bad things later" it's he WILL do other bad things later.

Ah, okay, so it's absolutely fated that the bad guy will kill people if he/she escapes.

In that case, the choice becomes extremely easy, though. It all depends on the level of the hero's knowledge.

1. If the hero thinks that free will and chance exist, and is totally ignorant of the fact that the villain absolutely WILL, inevitably, with all the force of destiny behind him, kill other people, then I posit that in 99 cases out of 100, the hero will make my choice.

2. If the hero knows the rules of the game, and is convinced of their actuality, the hero will, IMO, choose whichever option kills less people. If the hero knows, for a certainty, that disarming the bomb will result in 100 deaths, and catching the villain will result in 75 deaths, he or she will catch the villain. If less deaths result from disarming the bomb and letting the villain go, that becomes the better option.

In either scenario, there is really no choice involved. So I'm not sure what the point of the exercise is. :smallconfused:

[tomandtish]

There's a critical difference in the situation there, though. O-Chul simply had no power to save the people on the tower, no matter what he did--he wasn't good enough at lying to fool Redcloak, and he couldn't escape. The situation as presented in the OP has the hero being perfectly capable of rescuing the people in the room with the bomb if he chooses to do so.

This is a Kobayashi Maru situation, I reckon--there *is* no right answer. Either choice the hero makes will have some bad consequences.

My point was that O'Chul sums it up nicely whn he says "If you must throw those men to their undoing, then do so and be quick. The act is on your hands, not mine".

Point being that whatever O'chul does or doesn't do, Red Cloak is responsible for his own actions. If he kills, then the blood is on his hands, not O'Chul's.

[Bulldog Psion]

So...Batman should have killed the Joker in The Dark Knight? I don't disagree, mind. Incidentally, and pretty much definitely off topic, what even HAPPENED to him after that movie?

Problem is, the Batman was visible to the law both times he had the chance to kill the Joker. So he would have been arrested immediately in both instances, especially the first one in the cell.

[Dienekes]

On the side topic. Nolan said after Ledger's death he would not be recasting the Joker in honor of him. There was no plans to have Mr Jay in TDKR.

However, in the novelization it briefly mentions that there's a rumor that he is roaming around the ruins of Arkham. Though personally, I just go with after he was captured by the police he was sentenced to death and is now going to spend the next 40 years in Bomber's Row before he gets the needle.

[factotum]

My point was that O'Chul sums it up nicely whn he says "If you must throw those men to their undoing, then do so and be quick. The act is on your hands, not mine".

And my point is that this is a different situation to the one described in the OP and thus the situation here is not as clear-cut as that. If O-Chul could have escaped from his bonds and rescued those people, would you still consider him blameless if he just stood there and did not do so? I have a suspicion the Twelve Gods would certainly have something to say if that had been the situation!

[SiuiS]

Okay. We have established that the question is very much "are you at fault if someone else gives you power to do something moral", and the specific examples don't really matter.

The answer is that determining fault doesn't do anything. Both sides are right; you allowed people to die. But you also weren't responsible for it.

The real crime here is the context that if you can pass "responsibility" into someone else, then you're off a or-free for something that doesn't work like a debit account. Yes, the hero feels bad about it and the blood is on his hands. That's part of why he is a hero. Heroes are Greater than mortal men. Both in the quality sense and quantity sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

This is a Kobayashi Maru situation, I reckon--there *is* no right answer. Either choice the hero makes will have some bad consequences.

Incorrect. There is a right answer, but it hinges on knowledge not provided. There is no costless answer.

All of you must've heard the saying "can't save your cake and eat it too". That's what's going on here. This isn't a true no-win scenario, unlike O-Chul's. In O-Chul's case, he had no ability to save anyone. He had no worthwhile choices. Our hero does, both answer just have a cost associated.

[Asta Kask]

Sounds a bit like the The Troley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) There's a ton of literature on that.

[Jay R]

I followed you until you mentioned avoiding blame. The question isn't "who is blamed", it's "does intentionally failing to save lives in order to prevent even worse things from happening later, when there is plenty of reason to believe such things will happen later unless the opportunity to prevent them is taken here, itself constitute killing?"

That is exactly the sort of balanced thinking that a person trying to be reasonable does.

By contrast, a hero saves their lives. And then manages to stop the villain's plan later.

A hero is a person who acts heroically, which can often be evaluated as "stupid".

In the first Captain America movie, Cap asked Colonel Phillips if he's planning a rescue mission. He replies, "Sure. It's called winning the war." So Captain America gets a plane and parachutes behind enemy lines to attack a Nazi facility alone, having never been in a war zone before? This is gloriously heroic - and stupid.

The Pevensie children getting involved in a Narnian war? Stupid.
Hobbits walking into Mordor? Stupid.
Harry Potter facing Voldemort alone? Stupid.
Captain Kirk and his first officer beaming onto the enemy ship together? Stupid.
Will Tanner rescuing Captain Jack Sparrow from the gallows? Stupid.
The lawyer Ransom Stoddard facing the outlaw Liberty Valance in a gunfight? Stupid.

Heroes do heroic things, that others would call stupid.

This is why generals should not be heroes.

[Frozen_Feet]

Sounds a bit like the The Troley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) There's a ton of literature on that.

Actually, it's not at all similar, because the Trolley problem does not contain the element of bringing a known criminal to justice, and hence does not contain any assesment of potential drawbacks of letting someone live.


The idea that the hero is at fault is based on villains being functionally amoral, set pieces and not people who make decisions.

I don't know where you get this idea, because almost no-one I've discussed with considers villains amoral. A Villain is, by definition, an evil, immoral person, being contrast and opposition to the moral hero. Villains are by default assumed to be guilty. In fact, we could do just that and focus on the hero's decision solely: the reason being that just because the villain is to blame, doesn't mean the hero is blameless.

Great many systems of morality make a distinction between killing someone and letting people die. The whole question "is their blood on the hero's hands?" is wrong from that perspective, because it is insufficiently specific. If the question was "is the hero guilty of manslaughter or murder?", the answer is no. He had no intention to kill them and was not responsible for engineering the question. If the question is "is the hero guilty of negligent or involuntary homicide?" the answer is yes, because he had a possibility to save those people.

[hamishspence]

"If the question is "is the hero guilty of negligent or involuntary homicide?" the answer is yes, because he had a possibility to save those people."

Even if the possibility exists, the hero isn't necessarily guilty.

"Police sniper" situations might end up a lot like this - with the sniper taking the shot, innocents dying - and the sniper being found Not Culpable for their deaths at a hearing.

[Frozen_Feet]

True, but the "not culpable" is due to a different factor: Right of self-defense. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_self-defense) (I have to note I like the Finnish term "hätävarjelu" much better. The direct translation would be "protection of self and others in extreme cases".) Basically, the charges are dropped despite of what the hero has done, because the situation is deemed to have warranted such behaviour. This can only happen if bringing the criminal to justice or preventing him from doing more harm are considered a higher priority of justice than saving lives. This loops back to the question I and other posters have pointed out: how bad can things get if the criminal goes free? In real life, it's hideously rare for capture of one villain to be considered worth of sacrificing a dozen civilians. It usually only happens during war.

[hamishspence]

"Human shield" situations are not something anybody wants to encourage. This might be why, when harm comes to the human shields, the person using them is the one that gets most - maybe even all - of the blame.

[Frozen_Feet]

That is correct.

[hamishspence]

"Under what circumstances, if any, is sacrificing the innocent not an Evil Act" seems to be one of the questions that crops up a lot in the D&D section of the forums.

[Bulldog Psion]

As defined, this is a true "lesser of two evils" problem.

If the hero goes for the bomb, people will die.

If the hero goes for the villain, people will die.

Since the "quandary" was set up so that the hero is railroaded into accepting that somebody dies no matter what, due to some kind of Fate thing (which makes me dislike the whole setup from the get-go), there's no moral responsibility either way for the hero's decisions. It's stacked to force the hero "choose" to kill someone innocent no matter what they do, with no option to not play at all, so the fact that it is utterly, grossly unfair automatically absolves the hero of any and all guilt involved.

It's like tying someone up, throwing them down a 500 foot shaft with a bunch of prisoners at the bottom, and then blaming them for killing the people they land on. That's what this particular "thought experiment" reminds me of.

Anyway, to return to the original thing -- since the hero has no choice that leads to zero deaths, their only remaining option is to pick the one that leads to the least number of deaths.

If the hero is given the truly unfair situation of knowing for a certainty that they will kill people no matter what they do, but do not know how many will be killed as a result of their choice, then I'd say their best option is to capture the villain and beat them to death with a sack full of fermented baboon feces for causing this situation in the first place. :smallbiggrin:

[Jayngfet]

Then why does crap like I've posited here WORK all the time in fiction? :P


Usually because there's either an urgency that causes snap decisions with no ability to take a third option(Batman, who often has to make that call and save the civilians) or else for some reason everyone else just can't do it(Batman, and it's one of his sidekicks or partners as a hostage), though often a third option is present anyway(Batman again, who's good enough to disable the bomb AND beat the bad guy if it plays a certain way). Generally speaking, Batman's handled every variation on this dilemma one way or another.


To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

In answer to the actual question, the technicalities of agency are irrelevant in the face of the actual benefit or deficit to people. If the villain escapes, working out whether or not he will actually do more damage than his bomb is basically the only worthwhile consideration.

If he's somehow got a whole nother lair with a whole nother group of mooks handy, killing him probably wouldn't do much anyway. Especially if nobody else can intercept them in a timely fashion and all their identities are secret and can't be gathered from the information already in the base or captured mooks.

In that case, odds are he has another lieutenant able to carry out a B plan or improvise and you're back to square one no matter what happens.

[Jormengand]

If he's somehow got a whole nother lair with a whole nother group of mooks handy, killing him probably wouldn't do much anyway. Especially if nobody else can intercept them in a timely fashion and all their identities are secret and can't be gathered from the information already in the base or captured mooks.

In that case, odds are he has another lieutenant able to carry out a B plan or improvise and you're back to square one no matter what happens.

To ignore a thought experiment by changing the parameters of that thought experiment is also to ignore the point of that thought experiment.

[SiuiS]

Incorrect. There is a right answer, but it hinges on knowledge not provided. There is no costless answer.

All of you must've heard the saying "can't save your cake and eat it too". That's what's going on here. This isn't a true no-win scenario, unlike O-Chul's. In O-Chul's case, he had no ability to save anyone. He had no worthwhile choices. Our hero does, both answer just have a cost associated.

Ah, thank you. Yes.

We associate cost with loss. It's silly of us. Sometimes the "victory condition" is maintaining a system, for example, preventing degeneration. But we still consider it a losing scenario because you don't ever win and can retire back to a life of leisure or whatever.



I don't know where you get this idea, because almost no-one I've discussed with considers villains amoral. A Villain is, by definition, an evil, immoral person, being contrast and opposition to the moral hero. Villains are by default assumed to be guilty. In fact, we could do just that and focus on the hero's decision solely: the reason being that just because the villain is to blame, doesn't mean the hero is blameless.

A villain is objectified. They are a caricature. They don't exist for any rational reason, although we like to rationalize them. They exist to provide something for the hero, a moral topography. We attribute personhood to them but they are symbols.
This is why we don't normally say "Geoff, the man who [example life which justifies his stance]", we say "villain".


"Under what circumstances, if any, is sacrificing the innocent not an Evil Act" seems to be one of the questions that crops up a lot in the D&D section of the forums.

Has some good and subjective answers too. The Tales of Wyre by sepulchrave II has this. The paladin is first tested by a celestial, who gets him to admit that his petty mortal needs aren't important, and later by a decieving demon lord who asks "when is lying ever okay, even to a devil?"

It's pretty neat. You should check it out.

[Jay R]

Then why does crap like I've posited here WORK all the time in fiction? :P

Because we want to see the hero overcome impossible odds to do the amazing, not watch the philosophical thinker balance the issues and make carefully considered sacrifices.


To dream the impossible dream
To fight the unbeatable foe
To bear with unbearable sorrow
To run where the brave dare not go

To right the unrightable wrong
To love pure and chaste from afar
To try when your arms are too weary
To reach the unreachable star

This is my quest
To follow that star
No matter how hopeless
No matter how far

To fight for the right
Without question or pause
To be willing to march into Hell
For a heavenly cause

And I know if I'll only be true
To this glorious quest
That my heart will lie peaceful and calm
When I'm laid to my rest

And the world will be better for this
That one man, scorned and covered with scars
Still strove with his last ounce of courage
To reach the unreachable star.

The words are those of an ultimate hero.

And a madman.

[Jayngfet]

To ignore a thought experiment by changing the parameters of that thought experiment is also to ignore the point of that thought experiment.

Hey, the parameters of the experiment are ill defined and not terribly well thought out.

We're talking about a hero who comes in apparently alone, but with enough firepower to blow through any mooks he finds. But somehow the main villain is too much of a challenge to just shoot and be done with. If his lair is taken from him, he's somehow able to pick up the slack immediately despite evidently losing his whole staff, who apparently can't be taken to tell you where it is under interrogation. His getaway method is apparently instant and untrackable, despite the hero apparently being able to do everything else incredibly quickly and implicitly having power or resources of his own to handle.

The situation as written is nonsensical, and as such the only thing that makes sense is to take a third option, as is the case in most moral ultimatums.

[Lheticus]

Hey, the parameters of the experiment are ill defined and not terribly well thought out.

We're talking about a hero who comes in apparently alone, but with enough firepower to blow through any mooks he finds. But somehow the main villain is too much of a challenge to just shoot and be done with. If his lair is taken from him, he's somehow able to pick up the slack immediately despite evidently losing his whole staff, who apparently can't be taken to tell you where it is under interrogation. His getaway method is apparently instant and untrackable, despite the hero apparently being able to do everything else incredibly quickly and implicitly having power or resources of his own to handle.

The situation as written is nonsensical, and as such the only thing that makes sense is to take a third option, as is the case in most moral ultimatums.

You're not wrong--honestly, I was hoping someone else would have come up with a better example by now. I'm sure having no luck doing so.

[Bulldog Psion]

Has some good and subjective answers too. The Tales of Wyre by sepulchrave II has this. The paladin is first tested by a celestial, who gets him to admit that his petty mortal needs aren't important, and later by a decieving demon lord who asks "when is lying ever okay, even to a devil?"

It's pretty neat. You should check it out.

"Pretty neat" doesn't begin to describe that storyline.

"Awe-inspiring, well-written, mysterious, and grand" would be a lot closer to the actuality. :smallcool:

Thank you for pointing me in that direction! :smallsmile:

[Frozen_Feet]

"Under what circumstances, if any, is sacrificing the innocent not an Evil Act" seems to be one of the questions that crops up a lot in the D&D section of the forums.

There's actually an easy starting point for this in the 3rd Edition rules. Evil person is someone who "debases or kills others for fun or profit". From this, we can gather that other motives for killing are not necessarily evil.

Killing is, however, almost never good. The only case where I remember killing someone or -thing being specified as a good action is in case of [Evil] outsiders, and Undead.

Based on this, we could conclude that letting someone die when you can derive no profit nor satisfaction out of it is an amoral, neutral act. Complications occur when we realize that capturing the criminal will almost certainly net some amount of profit or satisfaction to the hero.

This again loops back to the cost-benefit-analysis of "what's lost if the villain goes free?" Saving others is considered a good act, except for [Evil] outsiders and Undead. if we can with certainty know that the hero is aiming to save more people than will be lost, then his actions are at worst neutral. If capturing the criminal will not realistically do that, then the hero is putting his desire ("fun") of capturing the criminal above the lives of innocent people, making him evil.




A villain is objectified. They are a caricature. They don't exist for any rational reason, although we like to rationalize them. They exist to provide something for the hero, a moral topography. We attribute personhood to them but they are symbols.
This is why we don't normally say "Geoff, the man who [example life which justifies his stance]", we say "villain".

I agree, but only in the sense that all fictional characters are symbols. From an in-universe point of view, villains are persons just as much as the hero is. For purposes of this exercise, the "villain" could as well be a real person, with real motives. Ultimately, this is a sidetrack, as the real question aboout amorality versus immorality. Even an objectified character can be either.

[Jay R]

There is a distinction that needs to be drawn between making an evil decision and making a poor decision based on incomplete or incorrect information.

Suppose the hero decides to release the villain, in order to go save the lives from the known explosives. He goes off and discovers that nobody was in fact in the room, and he didn't save any lives. Meanwhile, the villain went off and killed somebody else.

Clearly, this was a poor decision in reality, but it was based on the desire to help as many people as possible. The hero is a good person, led astray by false information.

Now consider a different person in the hero's place, who says, "I don't care about all those people; they aren't me." He shoots the villain, but only to collect the reward and because he enjoys shooting people.

Clearly, this is a bad person, who accidentally made the correct choice.

Now in the the case we were asked about, the people in the room about to be blown up are in real, immediate danger. Their immediate needs take precedence over the hypothetical needs of other potential victims of the villain, and who might or might not be saved by some other hero.

Otherwise, you're putting the hero in the position of a lifeguard who refuses to save a drowning swimmer, because there might soon be two others to save instead.

[Jormengand]

Their immediate needs take precedence over the hypothetical needs of other potential victims of the villain, and who might or might not be saved by some other hero.

Not necessarily. If you can make a good guess at Probability*Utility for each situation, you can evaluate the different sides.

For example, suppose the bomb would kill 2 people with a 100% probability, but each day, there was a 95% chance that the villain, if he escaped, would kill another person, and a 5% chance that he would fail, and finally be caught and killed/locked up/whatever. If you attempt to disarm the bomb, or if you attempt to kill or capture the villain, you will succeed with an equal chance either way.

Clearly, the correct thing to do is to take down the villain, regardless of how "Hypothetical" his later killings are, because he's liklier than not to get more than 2 of them off. Instantly discounting the deaths because there is not an exactly 100% chance that they will happen makes no sense.

[Frozen_Feet]

Here's an example that doesn't involve percentages:

The villain is the military leader of a hostile nation. A helicopter is coming to fetch him. You know that if you shoot the helicopter down, the villain will be unable to escape. Shooting just the villain isn't an option. The guards are on to you, trying get a clear shot will blow your cover. You can only choose to shoot the heli down now, or when it takes off with the villain. In either case, the whole helicopter crew will die.

Is it good or bad to take the shot?

[Lheticus]

Here's an example that doesn't involve percentages:

The villain is the military leader of a hostile nation. A helicopter is coming to fetch him. You know that if you shoot the helicopter down, the villain will be unable to escape. Shooting just the villain isn't an option. The guards are on to you, trying get a clear shot will blow your cover. You can only choose to shoot the heli down now, or when it takes off with the villain. In either case, the whole helicopter crew will die.

Is it good or bad to take the shot?

I'm uncertain this is an appropriate example. "The military leader of a hostile nation" implies that the shooter's nation is in fact at war with that leader's nation, or at the very least this operation is an attempt to prevent war from occurring. War is a thing so monstrous, so counter to morality discussions in the first place that I don't think what I'm trying to discover even applies.

But I'll answer the question anyway. If the shooter can destroy the helicopter with the leader in it, (I assume taking him out is the shooter's objective) he should. "Cut off the head and the body will die" after all. And...in your example, I really would think a war would already have to be on. Shooting down a helicopter implies a rocket launcher or something--overkill for taking out just one person. My view on how this could happen is that there were already soldiers armed with more conventional assassination methods, but they were already captured/killed and the guy with the rocket launcher was along as a last resort somehow. In any case, the correct course seems obvious since wouldn't it still be other soldiers piloting the helicopter?

[Frozen_Feet]

War is a thing so monstrous, so counter to morality discussions in the first place that I don't think what I'm trying to discover even applies.

Suppose there's 50% chance a war will start if you let the villain go. Is war monstrous enough to kill a dozen people to prevent that chance?


In any case, the correct course seems obvious since wouldn't it still be other soldiers piloting the helicopter?

You wouldn't know. Soldiers are still people, though. Their only "crime" is coming to fetch their boss and being at the wrong place at the wrong time. How much does it matter who the crew are, and why?

[Lheticus]

Suppose there's 50% chance a war will start if you let the villain go. Is war monstrous enough to kill a dozen people to prevent that chance?



You wouldn't know. Soldiers are still people, though. Their only "crime" is coming to fetch their boss and being at the wrong place at the wrong time. How much does it matter who the crew are, and why?

I thought I explained why it wouldn't make any sense for a war not to already be on in your scenario?

[Frozen_Feet]

It's entirely possible for an invidual vigilante or insurgent to get a weapon powerful enough to drop a heli. Helicopters are not very durable.

So no, there's no necessity for a war to already be going on. But if you insist on a war-time scenario: if it's only 50% chance stopping the villain will stop the war, is it worth the people killed?

[Jay R]

Not necessarily. If you can make a good guess at Probability*Utility for each situation, you can evaluate the different sides.

For example, suppose the bomb would kill 2 people with a 100% probability, but each day, there was a 95% chance that the villain, if he escaped, would kill another person, and a 5% chance that he would fail, and finally be caught and killed/locked up/whatever. If you attempt to disarm the bomb, or if you attempt to kill or capture the villain, you will succeed with an equal chance either way.

Clearly, the correct thing to do is to take down the villain, regardless of how "Hypothetical" his later killings are, because he's liklier than not to get more than 2 of them off. Instantly discounting the deaths because there is not an exactly 100% chance that they will happen makes no sense.

That's the approach of a policy wonk. We're discussing the action of a hero. The hero is supposed to defeat impossible odds.

[Coidzor]

To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

If a thought experiment can't be shown to have any point, well... What's the point?

Either it needs to be better constructed to actually get at what it wants to get at or it's worthless.


Sounds a bit like the The Troley Problem. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem) There's a ton of literature on that.

Nah, the Trolley Problem doesn't give you an opportunity to choose between decking the guy who set up the trolley to kill people in the schnoz or saving the lives of the people in the Trolley Problem at the cost of having the guy who set it up go on to set up another Trolley Problem for someone else down the line ad nauseum.

Nor does it pit save X number of people but have a constantly increasing number of people die as a result, starting at Y and increasing over time against letting X number of people die and killing one more in order to prevent >Y people dying, where Y will eventually be > X.

The closest analogue I can think of is pitting killing 5 quarantined people who will get better, eventually against their virus spreading because they're left alive which will go on to kill 100 in the next wave and more by the day after that as it spreads like plague. Even then it's... off...

[SiuiS]

"Pretty neat" doesn't begin to describe that storyline.

"Awe-inspiring, well-written, mysterious, and grand" would be a lot closer to the actuality. :smallcool:

Thank you for pointing me in that direction! :smallsmile:

It is amazing. Be careful though; some of the ideas there can make normal D&D games go weird.
The idea of valence shells and the uses of epic magic are nice (impulses are a great idea) but the meta concepts can crash most plots.

Still; amazing.


If a thought experiment can't be shown to have any point, well... What's the point?

Either it needs to be better constructed to actually get at what it wants to get at or it's worthless.

You're missing the point there. It's not that it's a thought experiment; it's that thought experiments like this are by their design socratic dialogue. You accept the explicit and implicit bounds of the situation as true.

Yes there are alternate possibilities, but the design of the situation is to test the situation, not your ability to wriggle out of it.

Is that making sense?

[Crow]

I'm not sure I understand the OP. Is the quandry supposed to be "what the hero should do?" or "Whose fault are the resulting deaths?"

Because if it's the first I have a lengthy reply. If it's the second, it is just a pretty stupid question.

[Coidzor]

The quandary is this: Say the hero says basically he WILL still stop him and refuse to go after the bomb instead. On whose hands is the blood of the people killed by the bomb? Personally, I'd say the villain full stop--he's the one that's willing to kill just to get what he wants or save his own neck. If he didn't put people in danger, they wouldn't NEED to be saved. However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

Heroes are Heroes because they don't want to sacrifice the little guy for an easy victory. Typically they don't want *any* innocents to die. So, naturally, they will take steps to prevent and avoid this, and if they don't, it becomes all the more jarring if we're being told that this person is a Hero. Or even a hero.

So that should at least partially explain your observations.


You're missing the point there. It's not that it's a thought experiment; it's that thought experiments like this are by their design socratic dialogue. You accept the explicit and implicit bounds of the situation as true.

Yes there are alternate possibilities, but the design of the situation is to test the situation, not your ability to wriggle out of it.

Is that making sense?

Considering even the OP seems to have admitted they were left desiring a better formulation? It's just as much about reacting to the situation as it is that the design of the situation be good for what it's trying to explore.

Saying that the design doesn't matter is gibberish. The design determines what we're exploring.

And your argument is one that seeks to further undermine Jormengand's point of making a sacred cow out of thought experiments here.

[factotum]

Otherwise, you're putting the hero in the position of a lifeguard who refuses to save a drowning swimmer, because there might soon be two others to save instead.

No, you're not--you're putting the hero in the position of a lifeguard who has *three* drowning swimmers in front of him and only has the capability of saving one of them, which is not the same thing at all.

[Asta Kask]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

[SiuiS]

Considering even the OP seems to have admitted they were left desiring a better formulation? It's just as much about reacting to the situation as it is that the design of the situation be good for what it's trying to explore.

Oh, I didn't notice the OP said anything. I don't keep track of the generic avatars so well.


Saying that the design doesn't matter is gibberish. The design determines what we're exploring.

No, I'm saying the intention should be considered.


And your argument is one that seeks to further undermine Jormengand's point of making a sacred cow out of thought experiments here.

This is gibberish to me. Rephrase?


Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

Pretty much. Saving the people is the right choice if you oppose the villain in order to save people. Killing the villain is the right thing to do if you oppose the villain to oppose the villain. We assume heroes would be heroic, but culturally we've lost sight of what that means. We assume the symptom is the illness, as they say.

With this in mind I should go back through old movies and see what it shows me.

[Coidzor]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

Villains categorically never "just" have a heart attack.

[Asta Kask]

Be bitten by a shark with laser beams attached to its head.

[hamishspence]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

It may not be certain - but it's predictable - especially at the large scale. That's probably a big part of health policy - you can predict accurately that X% of the population will suffer from Y health issue if you do nothing, and so, you act accordingly.

[Asta Kask]

Yes, but it's not a predictable on a single-villain scale. If we had ten thousand villains with ten thousands Doomsday Devices then... actually, then we'd be screwed. But you get my point - the future is uncertain, so discount future losses over present ones. We all do it and to a certain degree its rational.

[Wardog]

My personal opinion is:

"The most moral action is the one that saves the most lives".

In the original scenario presented, innocent people are going to be killed by the villain, regardless of what the hero does. The most moral response of the hero is whichever one prevents the most killing, which in this case is "stop the villain". As presented, I don't see it as being fundamentally different from "the villain has set up two bombs - one which will kill 10 people and one which will kill 100. You can only disarm one. Which do you chose?"


Now, I think the problem with a lot of "moral dilemma" thought experiments is that they give you the exact results of every action. In the real world you don't normally have this much information, so you have to go by probabilities. (The Trolley Problem suffers the same flaws).

If this was happening for real, you would have to compare the probable effects of the villain escaping against the probable effect of the bomb going off. Will the villain really try to kill other people? Will he succeed? Will you/someone else be able to stop him first? Is the bomb reliable? Will it actually go off if you do nothing? Can you disarm it without setting it off? How powerful is it? Will people be able to escape without your help? All these affect what the outcome of each option will be, and hence what the most moral decision would be. And given the uncertainties, I wouldn't blame the hero for the outcome, whatever they did and whatever they happened.

(With the exception that if they either did something really stupid, or callously ignored the risk of casualties on the grounds that their sole objective was to stop the villain regardless of the cost. And even then, the villain would still share moral responsibility, for setting up the dilemma in the first place).

[Lheticus]

All right...I think I MIGHT have a new scenario that's better than my original. I'm re-testing the original question sans the focus on blame, and added something new based on building off what's already been said here.

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

Is it right to throw the case so that the killing spree doesn't happen, AND if so...how do you stop someone like that?

EDIT: Just thought I'd make clear when I say Miles Edgeworth "as the hero" I mean he's a good guy rather than how he was starting out, not the traditional hero/villain sense.

[Jormengand]

And your argument is one that seeks to further undermine Jormengand's point of making a sacred cow out of thought experiments here.

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.


That's the approach of a policy wonk. We're discussing the action of a hero. The hero is supposed to defeat impossible odds.

If you mean "That's the approach of someone who actually cares about real people. We're discussing the action of a protagonist of some kind of weird shonen manga. The protagonist is supposed to try to be really cool above all else even when people's lives are on the line," then I suppose I might agree with you.


Guys, I thought this was a hypothetical moral quandary, not a real heroic quandary. Come on.

[Jay R]

To answer a question about what a hero should do, here is the answer from a hero. The citation is from the second Superman and Spider-Man comic, published in 1981, and written by Jim Shooter:


I can't help thinking about what Doom said - that merely to possess great power is to decide the fate of others!

Here I am "deciding the fate" of two planeloads of people - and, probably, in the next few days, I'll save still more lives!

And yet, by not giving Doom and the Parasite my undivided attention, I may leave myself wide open to an attack --

-- which could leave the world wide open for Doom's mysterious power play!

A dilemma - for philosophers, maybe! To me the answer is clear!

I'll simply do the best I can! I'll answer every call for help that I'm able to, I'll work on stopping Doom in between! --

-- and I'll fit my life as Clark Kent in around the edges!

[hamishspence]

Not every hero is Superman though. It makes sense for him to place Helping The Helpless over Thwarting The Villain. Others might reverse this.

[Asta Kask]

Right. Batman or the Punisher might have different ideas.

No, you can't let the villain get away with this. To do so would be to show everyone how to cheat the system. This is the purpose of revenge. This is why e.g. Israel is still hunting down former Nazi officers, despite the chances of them starting a second holocaust when they're in their 90's. Deterrence. Deploy police to mitigate the causalties, but do not negotiate. The knock-down effects are too strong.

[Crow]

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

Agreed. Totally missing the point.

[Coidzor]

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone. :smallconfused:


If you mean "That's the approach of someone who actually cares about real people. We're discussing the action of a protagonist of some kind of weird shonen manga. The protagonist is supposed to try to be really cool above all else even when people's lives are on the line," then I suppose I might agree with you.

We've already had SiuiS(iirc) spend some time on arguing that villains aren't actually people, but instead are symbols after all. If villains are symbols rather than people, then so are heroes, as at the end of the day they're both just tools in stories we tell ourselves and others about the world.

Heroes and Villains don't run around doing that sort of thing except in our stories and the question is intrinsically linked to our stories due to being born of them. Hence reminding the OP about that as an aside.

A bit meta, sure. A bit tangential, sure. That's why it was initially an aside, at least on my part.


Agreed. Totally missing the point.

Arguing that formulation doesn't matter is also missing the point of several things beyond the individual hypothetical. Thankfully it's been clarified that none of the people who appeared to be arguing this were actually intending to argue it.

I still think they're undervaluing proper formulation and re-calibrating the question to better ask what we want to explore here.


Oh, I didn't notice the OP said anything. I don't keep track of the generic avatars so well.

They be a treacherous map of the ocean. Yarr.


No, I'm saying the intention should be considered.

Sure, I just think that it should be better reflected in the quandary and if it isn't, the quandary changed to better reflect it and that exploring how to change the question and the context that lead to the question can be useful and interesting.


This is gibberish to me. Rephrase?

For appearing to ride in to agree with Jormengand, you appeared to just want to argue against their assertion from the opposite direction.


Pretty much. Saving the people is the right choice if you oppose the villain in order to save people. Killing the villain is the right thing to do if you oppose the villain to oppose the villain. We assume heroes would be heroic, but culturally we've lost sight of what that means. We assume the symptom is the illness, as they say.

With this in mind I should go back through old movies and see what it shows me.

Pretty much.

Sounds like a plan.

[Lheticus]

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone. :smallconfused:

Oooookay. Methinks this thread is starting to get to a place that could benefit from a few ccs of "calm yo tits".


Sure, I just think that it should be better reflected in the quandary and if it isn't, the quandary changed to better reflect it and that exploring how to change the question and the context that lead to the question can be useful and interesting.

Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

[Bulldog Psion]

Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

I noticed. But now it really is an honest to golly quandary, and I'm trying to puzzle out how to respond to it.

Perhaps your effort to rework it worked too well! :smallwink:

[Crow]

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

If you throw the case, you don't get a second chance. You have to aprehend him on some other charge, and what is to stop him from making the same threat the next time? You MUST convict.

But if you got the boss, you probably have some knowledge of his organization. Police usually know the general location of most organized crime players at any given time, but can't move because of lack of evidence or several other reasons. Criminal cases are long. This gives you time to find the lieutenants, and if you can't move on them, you can still run surveillance on them. Then there is also the possibility that if the boss is convicted a power struggle could ensue within the organization. Who is to say every lieutenant is going to follow through and risk jumping onboard a sinking ship when they could be setting themselves up for a greater role under the new boss, or be the boss themselves?

But in the end, ignoring everything in the paragraph above, it all comes down to one thing. You can't give this guy a get out of jail free card like that. All you do is encourage and embolden others to use the same ploy. Eventually you end up with a judicial system so afraid to convict anybody that the rule of law becomes meaningless.

[Mando Knight]

To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

To ignore a thought experiment by changing the parameters of that thought experiment is also to ignore the point of that thought experiment.

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.
I disagree. Changing the parameters, or coming up with solutions that beat the question at hand, allows one to explore what's really going on.

The OP's quandary can be reproduced like so: you have the power and choice between stopping a tragedy now or preventing future similar tragedies from occurring (with certainty). Is it moral to prevent the future tragedies at the cost of being forced to allow the present tragedy?

This alone is insufficient for a solution as to the "most moral choice": if the future tragedies are not certain to occur, then one is choosing to not deal with the present out of fear of the future. If the future tragedies are certain, then dealing with the present without regard for the future is reckless. If you are certain to be in the position to make this choice again at the cusp of every other tragedy to come, then the choice is between preventing n tragedies or n-1 tragedies, and defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. If you are not certain to be in such a position, then you essentially must make a choice as to which tragedy you prevent... and if you do not know how many future events you may not be able to prevent, eliminating the cause is the most rational action.

Is the tragedy the hero's fault? No. The hero is at fault only for making a decision under the circumstances he finds himself. The one who placed him in the no-win situation is the one at fault for the tragedy itself. However, if when in a position to do something, the hero chooses to do nothing, he is responsible for the consequences of his inaction.

[SiuiS]

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone. :smallconfused:


There is also a thing called analysis paralysis, where you spend so much time thinking nothing gets done. Also, there's a point of over saturation where if you think about something enough, you can wrap you head around it, and it gets to a point where nothing amtters and everything is equal, even though they shouldn't be. So it's a fine balance, to strike. I do believe in this instance you were right though.



We've already had SiuiS(iirc) spend some time on arguing that villains aren't actually people, but instead are symbols after all. If villains are symbols rather than people, then so are heroes, as at the end of the day they're both just tools in stories we tell ourselves and others about the world.

Heroes and Villains don't run around doing that sort of thing except in our stories and the question is intrinsically linked to our stories due to being born of them. Hence reminding the OP about that as an aside.

The difference is you rarely POV the villain. The aren't equal enough to say "they're both just symbols".



Arguing that formulation doesn't matter is also missing the point of several things beyond the individual hypothetical. Thankfully it's been clarified that none of the people who appeared to be arguing this were actually intending to argue it.

I still think they're undervaluing proper formulation and re-calibrating the question to better ask what we want to explore here.


My intention was to say that there is an actual technique I can never recall the name of, Socratic somethingorother, that is basically a discourse such as this wherein the rules are you accept these concepts to be true and work with them. I took what I could see of Jor's position to be defending buy in, because sometimes you slay dragons to dissect the underlying symbols and values of rampage and princess-as-commodity and kingdom morality and morale they demonstrate... And sometimes you slay dragons because that's the game and you work with it.



For appearing to ride in to agree with Jormengand, you appeared to just want to argue against their assertion from the opposite direction.


Hmm. I don't see it. But okay, I can understand how appearances shape things.


Oooookay. Methinks this thread is starting to get to a place that could benefit from a few ccs of "calm yo tits".


Ha!



Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

Unfortunately, there's too much baggage to get an easy answer. You need to find an example that isn't connected enough to people's lives that tehy bring bias with them. Trials have rules and visceral connotations, such as no double jeopardy (automatically mkaing it different than most other moral questions), etc.

Also, we are self-indulgent and still enjoying answering what we think you meant. What you actually meant can wait. :smalltongue::smallwink:


If you throw the case, you don't get a second chance. You have to aprehend him on some other charge, and what is to stop him from making the same threat the next time? You MUST convict.

But if you got the boss, you probably have some knowledge of his organization. Police usually know the general location of most organized crime players at any given time, but can't move because of lack of evidence or several other reasons. Criminal cases are long. This gives you time to find the lieutenants, and if you can't move on them, you can still run surveillance on them. Then there is also the possibility that if the boss is convicted a power struggle could ensue within the organization. Who is to say every lieutenant is going to follow through and risk jumping onboard a sinking ship when they could be setting themselves up for a greater role under the new boss, or be the boss themselves?

But in the end, ignoring everything in the paragraph above, it all comes down to one thing. You can't give this guy a get out of jail free card like that. All you do is encourage and embolden others to use the same ploy. Eventually you end up with a judicial system so afraid to convict anybody that the rule of law becomes meaningless.

See? Baggage.

Being a juror or prosecutor or whatever does not put you in the same position as if you were a hero. Ironically, being a criminal does that. Only criminals can guarantee their decisions hold the lives of others in the balance. Because unlike a good guy, a criminal can just murder people; if he deals fairly with them that's a choice he made.

[Rodin]

I find it interesting that there's a distinction between "what would save the most lives" and "what a hero would do". A hero might well go to save the people, but it would be an instinctual response - saving people is what he does, and with no time to do a carefully plotted risk-analysis of the consequences of letting the villain go the gut reaction is save who you can now. That doesn't necessarily make it the right decision or even the most heroic - it's just the response that type of person would tend to make. There's plenty of stories that have the hero angsting over making the hard choice, to do the lesser evil and have that weighing on their conscience. And what makes it even more interesting is that you can oh-so-easily flip over into villainy this way - tyranny for the good of the people.

[SiuiS]

I find it interesting that there's a distinction between "what would save the most lives" and "what a hero would do". A hero might well go to save the people, but it would be an instinctual response - saving people is what he does, and with no time to do a carefully plotted risk-analysis of the consequences of letting the villain go the gut reaction is save who you can now. That doesn't necessarily make it the right decision or even the most heroic - it's just the response that type of person would tend to make. There's plenty of stories that have the hero angsting over making the hard choice, to do the lesser evil and have that weighing on their conscience. And what makes it even more interesting is that you can oh-so-easily flip over into villainy this way - tyranny for the good of the people.

It's a holdover. We understand at a visceral level that prototypical heroes aren't good people; they are Great. Greek heroes for example, are often jackasses. They aren't heroes in the "we should all be this way" sense, they are heroes in the "I wish that when this guy cut me off I could flip his car over by hand to show him who's boss" way.

But we learn that goodness and rightness lead to situations that lead to heroism. Heroic knights are heroic Because (like heroes) they are greater than normal men; harder, stronger, sterner, unflinching. But they demonstrate this by doing the right thing – fighting enemy armies to save maidens, fighting dragons, ending tyranny. Nobody acknowledges the inherent selfishness of these actions (getting a girl, being the bigger bully, getting rich and also a girl).

Heroes and how to be a hero are very different. The weird crossing of the streams generates emergent properties fun to explore.

[2xMachina]

I've watched too much shows and read too much books on this case.

Without regret, I would catch the villain 1st, and rescue 2nd. Does that make me an anti-hero? Probably? Will it be give more useful, yes, based on my experience.

The villain will kill many more as celebration of getting free. The hostages may be fake (no actual bomb). The hostages will probably die anyway, when the bomb goes off the second you disarm it. The disarming device is booby trapped to kill the hero when he touches it.

[Lheticus]

Unfortunately, there's too much baggage to get an easy answer. You need to find an example that isn't connected enough to people's lives that tehy bring bias with them. Trials have rules and visceral connotations, such as no double jeopardy (automatically mkaing it different than most other moral questions), etc.

Also, we are self-indulgent and still enjoying answering what we think you meant. What you actually meant can wait. :smalltongue::smallwink:



See? Baggage.

Being a juror or prosecutor or whatever does not put you in the same position as if you were a hero. Ironically, being a criminal does that. Only criminals can guarantee their decisions hold the lives of others in the balance. Because unlike a good guy, a criminal can just murder people; if he deals fairly with them that's a choice he made.

That...is a REALLY good point. a really really good point! 2,000 YES points to you sir, and I'll try and rejigger things yet again. Might take me a while.

[Frozen_Feet]

All right...I think I MIGHT have a new scenario that's better than my original. I'm re-testing the original question sans the focus on blame, and added something new based on building off what's already been said here.

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

Is it right to throw the case so that the killing spree doesn't happen, AND if so...how do you stop someone like that?

This bad situation is alleviated by the fact that there are many intermediate steps between prosecution and conviction. So stalling the trial while keeping the mob boss on pre-trial detention gives a chance to capture the lieutenants. Depending on how many lieutenants there are, how much resources we have to use for their capture and how long we can stall, we would ideally be able to rise above marginal utility of convicting the mob boss. In other words: reach a situation where convicting the mob boss will save more lives than will be lost when the remaining lieutenants go on a spree.

What I'm saying is: both letting the boss go and convicting him are, in this case, bad options. You let him go, and he continues his reign of terror; you convict him, his underlings continue his reign of terror for him. If you have to choose between these two options, it's a No-Win situation. So the right thing to do is actually ask the question you posed on the end, "how de we stop someone like this?", and come up with at least one plan that has a chance for better outcome.

[2xMachina]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

[Bulldog Psion]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

Send him to the chair. Anything else, and you might as well kneel and knock your forehead on the ground in front of him, and acknowledge him to be your lord and master. Then let the mayhem fall where it may.

[Mando Knight]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

So, do the job that is given to you, and the crime syndicate will blame you for its illegal retaliatory actions. Don't do your job, and not only have you not done your job, you're allowing the syndicate to proceed unimpeded.

One of these things will probably get you indicted.

[SiuiS]

That...is a REALLY good point. a really really good point! 2,000 YES points to you sir, and I'll try and rejigger things yet again. Might take me a while.

Ma'am, s'il vous plaît.
And dispense with the question. The question will allow people to infer the principle you want to discuss. Just ask about the principle directly. What are you trying to get at? You won't pollute your sample at this point because they're already polluted.


So, do the job that is given to you, and the crime syndicate will blame you for its illegal retaliatory actions. Don't do your job, and not only have you not done your job, you're allowing the syndicate to proceed unimpeded.

One of these things will probably get you indicted.

Indictment isn't moral rebuke. The law is amoral. It has to be; is important to delineate which side of the road to drive on and what color road signs should be, but those aren't moral at all, unless you're reaching.

[gooddragon1]

I think this might be frowned upon, but since it doesn't have anything to do with the Giant's works or a widespread social issue, I give it a good chance it won't be.

Say you have a villain and a hero. The hero confronts the villain, but the villain tells him he just activated a bomb that will go off in a crowded place and surely kill dozens of people, but in a room on the other side of the lair, there's a deactivation mechanism that the hero would easily be able to reach in time even with mooks in his way--but this would allow the villain to escape. The hero responds at first by saying he's not going to allow the villain to escape, because he'll just keep killing and generally doing evil things if he stops the bomb here. The VILLAIN then says: "Well...are you REALLY willing to let people die just to stop me?"

The quandary is this: Say the hero says basically he WILL still stop him and refuse to go after the bomb instead. On whose hands is the blood of the people killed by the bomb? Personally, I'd say the villain full stop--he's the one that's willing to kill just to get what he wants or save his own neck. If he didn't put people in danger, they wouldn't NEED to be saved. However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

Firstly:
It's a greater good scenario. I'd execute the villain and then attempt to save the people if I believed I could. It's unfortunate that they'll die but too many people would die and suffer if he got away.

Secondly:
The blood is not on the hands of the hero because he did his best to save as many lives as possible. If he allowed them to die because of laziness or in some way due to a deliberate lack of effort that was very reasonable then it is partially on his hands. So as long as you do the best you can, then you bear none of the guilt. At least in my opinion.

[Jay R]

Indictment isn't moral rebuke. The law is amoral. It has to be; is important to delineate which side of the road to drive on and what color road signs should be, but those aren't moral at all, unless you're reaching.

Some laws are simply requirements that we all do the same arbitrary thing, like the color of road signs or which side of the street to drive on. But a mob boss isn't being indicted for painting road signs the wrong color, but for bank robbery, murder, extortion, etc. These are definitely based on moral principles.

[gr8artist]

The original concept was a forced choice between "stop the villain now but definitely kill some people" and "let the villain free and definitely spare some people, though more might die as a result of the villain's future actions."
By establishing some over-the top set-up, we can make this happen without leaving room for the hero to come up with another solution.


The hero is trapped in a room with one door, alone, and with no tools, powers, or knowledge that might aid him.
There are two buttons, on opposite sides of the room. Pressing either button opens the door and lets him out.
30 random people are outfitted with devices they are unaware of and which are undetectable.
Pressing the left button makes the devices explode, killing the 30 people and anyone within 20 feet of them (20' because fireball).
Pressing the right button releases a chemical agent from each device, which has a 5% chance to kill anyone exposed to it, but also injects the wearer of the device with a vaccine that will guarantee their immunity to the disease.
The hero knows nothing about the chemical agent, other than that each device will likely expose 100 people in a day.
The villain is one of the people outfitted with a device. If innoculated, he will retire to his secret lair and never commit another crime, though his chemical plague might kill off the rest of the world.
No one else is aware of this dilemma.
Refusing to press either button after 1 hour will result in both effects being triggered simultaneously, killing 30 people, 30 crowds, and roughly 5% of all people exposed to the 30 chemical sources.
The hero knows the instructions and information presented to him are guaranteed to be true.

Kill people now, or probably kill people later.
Option A kills 29 innocents and 1 villain, plus 30 possible crowds or groups of people.
Option B guarantees the survival of 29 innocents and 1 villain, but will likely kill a great number over time.
The hero can do nothing but select A, B, or BOTH, but is free to do as he pleases after any of the effects are triggered.


The only thing he can do is calculate the probable number of people that will die to each method and press the button for the least loss of life overall.


An alternate experiment, using the same button/door room as before.
The villain is a homicidal genius with immense power, and ONLY the hero can stop or restrain him (like Bizarro, Apocalypse, or Doomsday to Superman).
A kills the villain and a room full of innocents.
B renders the hero powerless for up to one month, and no one will be able to stop the villain during this time. However, the innocents in the room are all made invulnerable for 1 month, and cannot be victims of the villain or his schemes during this time.
Selecting neither deprives the hero of his power and also kills the innocents, though not the villain.

[Lheticus]

The original concept was a forced choice between "stop the villain now but definitely kill some people" and "let the villain free and definitely spare some people, though more might die as a result of the villain's future actions."
By establishing some over-the top set-up, we can make this happen without leaving room for the hero to come up with another solution.

An alternate experiment, using the same button/door room as before.
The villain is a homicidal genius with immense power, and ONLY the hero can stop or restrain him (like Bizarro, Apocalypse, or Doomsday to Superman).
A kills the villain and a room full of innocents.
B renders the hero powerless for up to one month, and no one will be able to stop the villain during this time. However, the innocents in the room are all made invulnerable for 1 month, and cannot be victims of the villain or his schemes during this time.
Selecting neither deprives the hero of his power and also kills the innocents, though not the villain.

I like this scenario better than the first one since what I was trying to say wasn't more MIGHT die, but more WILL die--at least, it would be an extremely surprising event if none did in the event the villain escapes. Maybe decrease from a month to a week--the average villain can get a LOT done in a week in terms of general mayhem.

[WarKitty]

A thoroughly de-heroed version:

You're a police officer chasing a terrorist cell. You've managed to corner the last member of the group, though at the cost of the rest of your squad. You're out of ammo, though you have physical weaponry with which you could take down the terrorist.

The terrorist has lit a fire in a building with an unconscious civilian, who you could save with minimal risk. However, he is also himself rigged to a suicide vest. You are not far from a crowded area, and in the time it took you to disarm the bomb he would be far enough gone that he would have had time to detonate his vest, killing a much larger group of people.

[Crow]

A thoroughly de-heroed version:

You're a police officer chasing a terrorist cell. You've managed to corner the last member of the group, though at the cost of the rest of your squad. You're out of ammo, though you have physical weaponry with which you could take down the terrorist.

The terrorist has lit a fire in a building with an unconscious civilian, who you could save with minimal risk. However, he is also himself rigged to a suicide vest. You are not far from a crowded area, and in the time it took you to disarm the bomb he would be far enough gone that he would have had time to detonate his vest, killing a much larger group of people.

Is the vest on a dead-man's switch (do I see him clutching a detonator)? Or is it command-det?

[WarKitty]

Is the vest on a dead-man's switch (do I see him clutching a detonator)? Or is it command-det?

Command detonator - a dead man's switch wouldn't really work.

[Crow]

Command detonator - a dead man's switch wouldn't really work.

Well if I have cornered him, I guess I'm going to probably kill him. But will I really not have time to help the unconscious person? How long am I going to draw out the killing for?

[WarKitty]

Well if I have cornered him, I guess I'm going to probably kill him. But will I really not have time to help the unconscious person? How long am I going to draw out the killing for?

Given that you're as written using melee actions


But in any case...think of thought experiments as the philosophical version of science experiments. What you're trying to do is hold as many variables steady as possible while adjusting just one thing and seeing how people react to that thing. It's unrealistic in the same way a controlled laboratory experiment is unrealistic, but that's not really a flaw. It's not designed to reflect real-world actions. Complaining that the scenario is unrealistic is kind of like complaining that physicists like to deal with things like perfect spheres and frictionless surfaces.

[Crow]

Would a better way to do this would be like this?

The terrorist has an explosive vest, rigged to a dead-man's switch. He has taken a child to use as a human shield. You manage to corner him, and could kill him, but it would take the child (and you) with him. He tells you the child doesn't have to die, if you'll just let him get out the door.

As you point out, to make these things work, everything above is considered "true", meaning he keeps his word and lets the kid go, or you shoot him and kill the kid along with him. The hard part about these is that they all end up being variations of the Trolly Problem.

[Asta Kask]

James Bond would find out a way not only to kill the villain and rescue the child, but also have sex with the child's mother within ten minutes.

[hamishspence]

At the other end of the scale, pre-Imperial Thrawn would shoot through the child if he thought it was the only way to stop the villain.

But then, even before he joined the Empire - Thrawn was exceedingly pragmatic.

[Crow]

James Bond would find out a way not only to kill the villain and rescue the child, but also have sex with the child's mother within ten minutes.

This would be of course the only right answer.

[SiuiS]

Some laws are simply requirements that we all do the same arbitrary thing, like the color of road signs or which side of the street to drive on. But a mob boss isn't being indicted for painting road signs the wrong color, but for bank robbery, murder, extortion, etc. These are definitely based on moral principles.

That laws involving mob bosses coincide with morals does not mean the laws are based on morals. Just that "don't be an ass hat" is often economical as well as moral.

[Mando Knight]

Indictment isn't moral rebuke. The law is amoral. It has to be; is important to delineate which side of the road to drive on and what color road signs should be, but those aren't moral at all, unless you're reaching.

I disagree entirely on your assertion of the purpose of law, and would rather insist the opposite: the law must be moral, or else it fails its citizens. The assignment of arbitrary but useful customs (side of the road to drive on and colors of road signs for instance) flows from the moral duties of the government to protect its citizenry. There are a great many things that the law regulates or prohibits that fall well within the sphere of morality (do not murder, do not steal, do not discriminate against another on the basis of their skin color, etc.) where the economic concern is secondary at most, and economic laws and regulations work primarily to protect those involved.

Whether the law succeeds at being moral is another discussion entirely, and unfortunately most of the reasoning behind my beliefs on the purpose and function of the rule of law is too deeply rooted in topics that are beyond the scope of this forum.

[Wardog]

I disagree entirely on your assertion of the purpose of law, and would rather insist the opposite: the law must be moral, or else it fails its citizens.

I agree - I've seen this "law should not be moral / care about morals" meme a few times, and disagreed with it for the same reasons you give.

It seems to be based on a very narrow interpretation (or misinterpretation) of what "moral" means - I suspect as a result of some people advocating legislating according to one particular moral stance, and other people disagreeing with that moral stance and/or that it should be legislated on. But that doesn't mean that the law should always be amoral, just that a) not everyone agrees what it should be (which will be the case whatever you base the law on), and b) not everything is suitable for regulation by law (which is also true for both moral and amoral issues).

And I'll leave it there because I don't think we can go into much more detail than that without breaking forum rules.

[SiuiS]

I disagree entirely on your assertion of the purpose of law, and would rather insist the opposite: the law must be moral, or else it fails its citizens.

Agents of the law disagree with you. I believe laws should be moral as well, but that belief does not make them so. Nor will it.

Kind of like how US police are not requires to protect or help any individual, they only need to protect society as a whole. I find this dysfunctional, but it makes a certain amount of sense in the 'what people think a thing is and what the thing actually is are different' sort of way.

I would also go so far as to say morality cannot be legislated, actually. Morality is not rote action but a decision. Right action without right thought is not moral. But that's quite a tangent and only relevant in that it highlights my ability to understand the amorality of a legal system.

[Frozen_Feet]

If laws must be moral, there needs to be a system of morality above and beyond any single set of laws.

Suffice to say that the discussion on natural rights has been going on for a long time and we don't have anything better than UN's declaration of human rights to go by.

Legistlation of pretty much any nation consists mostly of things that have nill to do with those rights.

Ideally, yes, all laws would naturally follow from and serve some principle of justice or another. The specificity of laws required in the modern sadly means that noble purpose often gets buried under semantics. Seeing the spirit behind the letter of the law is hard enough when said spirit was firm in mind when the law was passed, nevermind when it's an afterthought.

[SiuiS]

Basically. You could only have a moral legal system if it was primarily tribal in function – decided based not on any actual law or rule but based on the moral understanding of those who have been allowed to make judgement.

We've all seen how effective that is.

[Coidzor]

Basically. You could only have a moral legal system if it was primarily tribal in function – decided based not on any actual law or rule but based on the moral understanding of those who have been allowed to make judgement.

We've all seen how effective that is.

Honestly, I'm not so sure about that.

I mean, Caesar's notes on Gaulish crime and punishment may stick out to some people, but that's not generally what people are reading his accounts of the Gauls and how he conquered them. And while anthropologists eventually started paying a bit more attention to such things when encountering and documenting peoples still solely existing at the tribal level, most of us aren't really all that aware of what they've found there.

[SiuiS]

Gauls? I didn't mean historical tribes. I meant the form of jurisprudence.

When your only moral compass is whether or not the guy who says Good/Bad says it's good or bad, that goes to that guy's head. He makes decisions from ego as much as from moral rightness, and things go bad. This is why people in the US don't like the Deep South; they aren't beholden to laws we all accept and they aren't willing to hear any pleas. Or that's the assumption, and it's the same assumption for gangs and organized crime.