Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat

[Ranis]

You have just escaped a sinking ship, and are in a lifeboat with a maximum persons cargo of two. There are two unconscious people with you, thus exceeding the maximum the lifeboat will carry by one. The lifeboat will sink if you do not act quickly. The unconscious people are your gender, body type, and disposition.

You cannot wake the unconscious people, nor hang off the side of the boat, or do anything whatsoever to save everyone on board the lifeboat. If someone is to leave the craft, they will die.

You now have three options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.


What would you do?

Is that the right thing to do?

What is the right thing to do?


((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))

[Shadow of the Sun]

If there was even a chance that the unconscious people would survive, I would throw myself overboard.

[Glaivemaster]

Throw one of the unconscious people overboard. I have a lot less to gain by saving them both and risking my safety than I do by (almost) ensuring my own

[Jack Squat]

I would throw off both the unconcious people and save someone who have a chance at surviving. You said yourself that the unconcious ones can't be woken. That's as good as dead.

Assuming I can't have that option, I'll throw off one unconcious person. preferably the one more likely to die before the rescue crew arrives.

EDIT: These conclusions are under the assumption that it would be days until a rescue crew arrives.

[averagejoe]

This largely depends on who the unconcious people are, but I would most likely throw one overboard and save myself and one other. The third choice is just rediculous. Throwing myself overboard would accomplish nothing; indeed, the lifeboat would be less likely to survive without a concious person onboard. This is just incidental, however. The real reason is because I am more important to me than most people are. Heck, if I were one of the unconcious people, I really couldn't fault someone else for doing the same.


I would throw off both the unconcious people and save someone who have a chance at surviving. You said yourself that the unconcious ones can't be woken. That's as good as dead.

See, I just took that to mean that they couldn't be woken in time to be able to do anything. I could be wrong, though.

[MrEdwardNigma]

I'd take turns swimming next to the boat, I suppose. if that won't work, I'm going for number two: jumping out. Unless one of the people in the boat is a really bad person, off course...

[Ranis]

I'd take turns swimming next to the boat, I suppose. if that won't work, I'm going for number two: jumping out. Unless one of the people in the boat is a really bad person, off course...

You cannot swim next to the boat. Please read the OP again.

[Aramil Liadon]

Depends.
First choice: Jump out. Save others before myself.
Second: If the lack of any conscious person on the lifeboat would greatly increase, to the point of near certainty, the probability of death of those on board, I would throw one overboard in order to save the other. This is NOT an answer I would willingly choose could it be reasonably avoided. It constitutes, to me at least, murder and fatal selfishness, and the choice of one life over another.
Oh, and third: If one of them was unconscious due to overdose of sugar, and the other due to a lung puncture, I would kill the one with a no chance to live in order that I could get away. Still might make me fell guilty, though.

[Ronsian]

If I knew I died, the rest would live, I would jump. If I thought they might not make it, I would throw one off.

[averagejoe]

But why jump off just to save them? I mean, altruism is well and good, but this seems rather self defeating. It does, at least for me, depend on who we're talking about, as there are people for whom I would die, but for the sake of argument let's assume they are complete strangers. Self preservation is both natural and necessary, and it is not more noble to objectify yourself than to objectify another person. You're still making a judgement, still choosing one life over another; you're saying that the lives of either one of these people is more valuable than your own life. Color me arrogant, but I like to think of myself as important, at least to me.

If saving yourself is "murder and fatal selfishness," then letting yourself drown is masochism and suicidal selfishness. Yes selfishness. You're killing yourself just to feel good about yourself, without any regaurd for how it might affect your family and loved ones. It isn't just about you; other people would benifit from seeing you back safe.

[Eldritch Knight]

Let just say that ethical interpretation of a scenario is a very difficult thing. From the individual perspective, it is common to act in the best interests of the self, so sacrificing one's life so that others may have a chance to leave is, (unfortunatly, in my mind) an abnormal solution. However, most people have a moral code that would prevent them from sacrificing another to save themselves, as it would essentially be murder. So, it comes down to a Graded Absolutism solution. what this means is that there higher principles that supersede the choices one makes in life. In this situation, the higher principle would be survival, and so the logical solution would be to unfortunatly cast one of the unconsious people over board.


Now, if I may change the scenario slightly:

What if the other two passengers are female (assuming you are male)? How does this influence the scenario? It is quite simple, actually.

Logically speaking, if it comes down to a choice between a male and a female to live or die, the male is expendable. I say this from a male perspective, but it is logical, in that the male cannot bear children, but the female can, so in the interests of preserving future generations, the female must live.

[Krimm_Blackleaf]

Well...the first responce that flashed across my mind was kill both people before the ocean can then escape myself.

[averagejoe]

Now, if I may change the scenario slightly:

What if the other two passengers are female (assuming you are male)? How does this influence the scenario? It is quite simple, actually.

Logically speaking, if it comes down to a choice between a male and a female to live or die, the male is expendable. I say this from a male perspective, but it is logical, in that the male cannot bear children, but the female can, so in the interests of preserving future generations, the female must live.

Yes, but that's only true if your population is somehow in danger of dying out. If humanity was in danger of dying out then the problems would be too bad for one more woman to solve. If being a woman made survival more likely at all it would be because the man who has to make the choice feels more duty to preserve the woman because of how we think of/treat women in society. I would wager a guess that we developed these ways of thinking out of the things you were talking about, but no one thinks, "Hmmm... well, if I let her live then she'll be able to produce more babies, so if I save her I'm really saving future generations."

[Zephra]

whyyy? life shouldn't have those choices. but I love this kind of thing, thanks! all right.
....
I would put the two unconcious people in the boat, and swim along side untill they wake up. then we take turns swimming.

ha!

[Lucky]

Throw them both out. :smallcool:



....
I would put the two unconcious people in the boat, and swim along side untill they wake up. then we take turns swimming.

ha!

Ha yourself:


If someone is to leave the craft, they will die.

You're dead. Game over.

[Rowanomicon]

Both my gut reation and after thorough thinking through (assuming both people are complete stranger of whom I know nothing) is to throw one of them off the boat.

EDIT: Of course since I wouln't now that they are unwakeable I would tread water/swim as long as I could to try and wait until one of them woke up so we could take turns swimming.

[Zephra]

Throw them both out. :smallcool:

well if your going to be like that, keep one in the boat, only kill him. now you have food for a time, right?

[Lucky]

well if your going to be like that, keep one in the boat, only kill him. now you have food for a time, right?
Ewwwwwww...

I think the assumption is you have enough food to live, otherwise it doesn't matter who you throw off, you're all dead.

[Spartan_Samuel]

Hm, either throw one of the unconscious overboard, or all three of us die. In my opinion, we'd all die anyways, but that's a moot point seeing as how this is ethics and about the choice at hand and not the backstory.

[Rex Idiotarum]

Which one looks more tasty? You know, lean, muscular, but not stringy?

[Ranis]

Truth be told, I do beleive the only logical conclusion to this problem would be to toss one of the "passengers" overboard, and work on saving just the two of us-to preserve two lives instead of one, with the chance, the CHANCE that the two would survive. If I jump off of the lifeboat, then I will die, and thereby I will never know if the two other people will survive. This way, I can at least attempt to save the two people instead of never knowing for sure, save in the next life.

To be honest, I don't think that you could convince me that anyone wouldn't do the same. When faced with such basic, animalistic choices, the basic human instinct is to survive. By any means necessary. I simply can't accept the notion of another person actually choosing their death over living, at the price of two people that they do not know, unconscious, there helpless. It simply doesn't make sense to me.

Is it the right thing to do? Maybe. Maybe not. I don't think that's entirely up for me to decide; I beleive that our moral codes of what is right and what is wrong are what are put within us at birth; say, we think it's wrong to kill others because we were raised that way and it was reinforced by our secondary shapers (teachers and peers not our parents) that killing is also wrong. But does that make it wrong? I don't think I'm the one to judge that.

I think the right thing to do is to preserve as much life as possible. This means throwing one person overboard to stop the Lifeboat from sinking, so that we and this other nameless person to escape.

Those of you who said that you would allow all three of you to die-I'm curious to hear your reasoning behind such a choice. Would you care to share?

[Vaynor]

Those of you who said that you would allow all three of you to die-I'm curious to hear your reasoning behind such a choice. Would you care to share?

Mostly because I feel killing is wrong in any manner, and it is not my right to decide upon a person's life like that. I would find it impossible to chose which of the two people to throw over, and if they were going to die, why should I jump off? A moral paradox if you will.

[averagejoe]

To be honest, I don't think that you could convince me that anyone wouldn't do the same.

Well, again, that rather depends. I've been arguing on the basis that these are strangers. There are, however, people who I know, as surely as I know anything, I would die to save. Maybe it's stupid of me, but there you go.

[Ranis]

Well, again, that rather depends. I've been arguing on the basis that these are strangers. There are, however, people who I know, as surely as I know anything, I would die to save. Maybe it's stupid of me, but there you go.

It should be taken in the context that you do not know either of the people on board with you. Anything otherwise would...confuse the moral quandry and make the whole thing more confusing than it apparently is for a few people that probably didn't read the OP in it's entirety before posting their response.

[Syka]

I'd chuck the one who looked least likely to live overboard (by taking in to account wounds, responsiveness in general, etc). I have morals, but when it comes down to me or a stranger, I'm sorry...Me. :P

But then, I'd also eat a traveling companion. If trapped on a mountain or something, and I was starving and my companion was dead...Yah, I'd eat them. Now, I wouldn't kill someone for food, but if they are already dead then they probably don't care. ;)

[Raven T.]

A classic moral dilemma.

Most likely, I would be among those who would not sacrifice myself in the name of saving the others. It could all turn out to be in vain; with no one conscious in the raft, their survival chances are less than yours are if they are left to their own devices. They could dehydrate. They could, themselves, die of injury. The raft could overturn.

Self-preservation is one of our strongest instincts. It's what keeps most of us from taking needless risks, though it seems to be a rarer commodity in this day and age. While it may be morally reprehensible to kill another, I cannot conceive risking all three lives to appease my conscience.

[SDF]

((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))

I hate these ultimatums. Real life doesn't work that way with choice A, B, or C being your only options. In such a hypothetical scenario I would probably cause the lifeboat to sink attempting to save all three of us. I refuse to accept the set of rules.

First, I don't know the future. I wouldn't just throw someone off to ensure I would survive, given a chance that anything could happen up until the boat actually sinks. Second, ethically either jumping overboard or throwing someone overboard is proactive and condemning someone to die. I'd do what I could to find another way, I don't play the game.

[Last_resort_33]

Agreed, I would go with option C, do something else, but given that actual choice, it seems that if I jump overboard, then two unconsious people in the middle of the sea won't stand a chance, so that'd be the same as all three of us dying.

saying that, If I were to overanalyse it, we would probably need food, so if I could keep an arm, then all the better.... what?

oh, and of course check his pockets for loose change first.

[Charity]

Mate you should at least consider chucking the amp overboard...




What? I need all this stuff.

[Last_resort_33]

Charity... you evil uncaring bastard.

"throw my amp overboard" indeed....

[averagejoe]

I have to say this, Last Resort: you've got style. There's not many that would get rescued by helicoptors as they're rocking out.

[Arlanthe]

We did a scenario like this in a psychology class once. What people say they will do, and actually do are two different things.

That being said, I am glad that the scenario is contrived, and even with limited supplies I would try and help everyone.

[Dib]

oh... so all 3 are on the lifeboat but its gonna sink... gotcha...

The right thing
Throw myself over

The wrong thing
Throw both of them over

What I would do
Throw one of them

I dont wanna be seen as a complete git so I'd say that there was no other person... or they fell off... or chose to go... or whatever... so long as I make it... I have a lot to do you know...

[Rykaj]

Throwing yourself off isn't even the right thing to do as Ranis said. If you at least left yourself on the boat you can actively care for the life of one individual, instead of wondering about the life of two unconscious people. I would definately throw one of them off immediately. The thought of jumping myself wouldn't even cross my mind. And if he's of the same gender, disposition, etc. like what was said in the OP we could probably have some good laughs waiting for the rescue boat to pick us up. Keeping your spirits up is one of the most important things in lifethreatening situations. That's why I would never choose the pessimistic act of suicide.

Should be said though, if I would dramatically increase my own chances of survival by throwing both off, I would. (only a dramatical increase though, not just a so-so increase, I'm not evil)

[Dhavaer]

Easy, throw one off. Whichever is closer to the edge.

To all those who elected to jump, two questions:
1. Really!?
2. Why!?

[Last_resort_33]

Yeah, pretty much. All the people who said that they'd definitely jump... I wonder how many of them would actually do it... I'm not SAYING that you wouldn't but I do wonder.

[Arlanthe]

Yeah, pretty much. All the people who said that they'd definitely jump... I wonder how many of them would actually do it... I'm not SAYING that you wouldn't but I do wonder.

That's sort of what I was referencing earlier. I don't want to go digging up citiations, but it should be easy enough for anyone to follow up and investigate-

People not only tend not to do extreme things to save other people (sacrificing a spot in the life raft), but people who say they will call in a domestic violence fight far outnumber the empiracally measured number who do. The same goes for giving a seat to an older person on a bus- what people say and do are two different things.

I don't think anyone truly knows what they will do in an extreme situation until faced with it.

[Ceska]

Eat one, keep the other as proviant.

Seriously, moral or not, you cannot really fight your self preservation instinct, thus killing another for your life is abolutly normal given the set of choices.


Now, if I may change the scenario slightly:

What if the other two passengers are female (assuming you are male)? How does this influence the scenario? It is quite simple, actually.

Logically speaking, if it comes down to a choice between a male and a female to live or die, the male is expendable. I say this from a male perspective, but it is logical, in that the male cannot bear children, but the female can, so in the interests of preserving future generations, the female must live.

I disagree. A female still needs a male to reproduce, and given we do not know if there will be any females where they go, I hope this is understandable, what I mean is, we do not know where the boat will land and if this island, or whatever, has humans as inhabitants. In this case the only logical conclusion would be killing one of the females thus preserving future generations. Not that I would like to be forced to do that.

[Koga]

You now have three options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.
This depends on if The Koga's girlyfriend Amaya was on the boat. If she was, The Koga would sacrfice everybody else on the boat. (Even if it wasn't truly nesscarey, just to be on the safe side..) as all life has less value then her.

However if not, then The Koga would simply throw off one person, as the value of The Koga's life is less then Amaya's, but ceartainly worth more then anybody else'es...



Is that the right thing to do?
The Koga would say so. He firmly believes this is the natural thing to expect considering where we stand in-life. This isn't a matter of fair or unfair to the other people, but what is the most rational option considering human value. And not all humans are equal.


What is the right thing to do?
If The Koga was not so narscistic, he would probably let us all die. So that there would be no favoritsm, no treachory, just pure, fair, classless sacrifice.

But he is misanthropic, he expects everyone to be whoremongers and vermin. And he treats them as such.

[Koga]

What if the other two passengers are female (assuming you are male)? How does this influence the scenario? It is quite simple, actually.

Logically speaking, if it comes down to a choice between a male and a female to live or die, the male is expendable. I say this from a male perspective, but it is logical, in that the male cannot bear children, but the female can, so in the interests of preserving future generations, the female must live.
You would think so wouldn't you? Women have more of a gamble with all those emotions and harmones though. "Why me?! This is all my fault! Why'd others have to die so I could live?! Wahhwahhwahh!"

And that's not useful to anybody...


No, all life is equal, (up untill they're sentinent enough to make descisions that can turn them into vermin) and human beings as a whole are presumed to be equaly vermin, the only exceptions are The Koga and his Amaya... ^_^

[tis_tom]

Well I wouldn't be affected by -who- the specific unconscious people are, because I'm not the type to favour one person over another due to status (me saying that my friend deserves to live more than another person who I don't know is morally biased, and thus wrong, in my opinion)

However! I could live with the guilt of throwing one of the unconscious overboard. This is because they are not aware of my actions, and I can help a lot more by being alert and alive than if I were to die. However if neither of them were unconscious and I knew 100% that these two people would survive and live on to live great lives, I guess I'd try my best and jump overboard, in the hope I could try to live, as I would stand the highest chance of survival in the water.

[Ranis]

I hate these ultimatums. Real life doesn't work that way with choice A, B, or C being your only options. In such a hypothetical scenario I would probably cause the lifeboat to sink attempting to save all three of us. I refuse to accept the set of rules.

If you don't want to participate, no one is going to beat you over the head with a rubber bat. This is a completely hypothetical situation about choice. To be honest with you, I don't think that anyone else here wouldn't do more to save the people with them; but that's not what this discussion is about.



Well I wouldn't be affected by -who- the specific unconscious people are, because I'm not the type to favour one person over another due to status (me saying that my friend deserves to live more than another person who I don't know is morally biased, and thus wrong, in my opinion)

However! I could live with the guilt of throwing one of the unconscious overboard. This is because they are not aware of my actions....


Ah, this is what I was hoping someone would post. The guilt factor. What would constitute your decision to toss someone overboard? Would that be considered murder? Would the ocean be doing the killing, or would you be by putting them there in the first place?

If you are religious and beleive in God, do you think He would justify you in your decision to perform the natural instincts that have been instilled within you, or would you be condemned for not doing the "right thing?"

Lets say you survive. How would society view you from that ordeal? More importantly, would they ever know if you never told anyone? If you didn't tell anyone, would that unjustify a natural decision? If you did tell society about your decision, do you think that they would be right in locking you up?

[Zephra]

post more! post more! this is one of my favorite things to do!
I used to know so many! what happened to them all...

[Eldritch Knight]

Another thing to consider is this: If killing one to save 10 is considered acceptable, does it then become reasonable to say that killing 100000 to save 10 Million is acceptable?

To apply it to the discussion, the only life who's value you are assured of is your own. So would the ending of your life to save 2 people of unknown value to the future be worth while?

[averagejoe]

I'm still not sure why jumping over youself should be considered the "right" thing to do. It seems to be accepted by many out of hand as the right thing to do, but with little explaination. I would like more on the why of this. It honestly suprises and confuses me.

[Closet_Skeleton]

Hmm... problamatic. I see two equal considerations.

1. You only have a right to make this kind of choice about yourself and should therefore kill yourself.

2. Three awake people are more likely to survive so the unconscious people should die so all three people survive.

[Zephra]

Another thing to consider is this: If killing one to save 10 is considered acceptable, does it then become reasonable to say that killing 100000 to save 10 Million is acceptable?

To apply it to the discussion, the only life who's value you are assured of is your own. So would the ending of your life to save 2 people of unknown value to the future be worth while?

you have a good point. however, I don't believe that killing one to save ten is acceptable at all. even to such extreams as:
a mad man with a bomb is says that if I kill my ...say, librarian... (someone that I don't especially care about or know) he won't bomb texas. I wouldn't be justified to kill the librarian, no matter what the outcome. which brings us to....
(Drum Roll, Please)

The Ends Justify the Means...or do they?
(dun, dun DUN!!)

[Last_resort_33]

But you've made the decision to kill 10 people rather than one?

wha?

Ultimately I am selfish... As are many other humans... If it were myself and Em and any other person, I would throw the other person. It it were myself and Em and only one person could stay on the raft, only THEN would I throw myself.

Two other questions.

1. What if everyone were consious, would your decision change.
2. What if it was you OR the other two people dead. Would you save your own life at the expense of two other peoples

for me,
1. I would fight, my decision would not change
2. I would like to believe that I would give my life for the two strangers to live, but I know that I wouldn't, How many people would it take to die for me to give my life? I don't know... I think I am so selfish that it wouldn't matter unless it were my Emily.

[Zephra]

i wouldn't kill them; their death would be a side effect which I am not responcible for.

[Ceska]

1. What if everyone were consious, would your decision change.
2. What if it was you OR the other two people dead. Would you save your own life at the expense of two other peoples

1. No, still try to eat them. Seriously, no it wouldn't. It would make the situation a bit harder, that's it.

2. Same. I value my life above others. And I believe every one who says he/she would jump lies, you actually have to do a lot of work convincing yourself to kill yourself, your instinct will usually keep yourself alive. (And whatever you say about morals, instinct is a lot older and stronger than morals could ever be).

[Last_resort_33]

i wouldn't kill them; their death would be a side effect which I am not responcible for.

I only sentenced someone to death... it's not my fault if a side effect of that results in their death. WAKE UP!


instinct is a lot older and stronger than morals could ever be
I like it, Mind if I sig that?

[ziratha]

I would toss one out. If one is a man and a woman, I would probably toss out the man, if one is fat/old and the other not, I would toss out the old/fat person (old/fat means less likely to survive in this situation, sorry but true.)

As for you people saying anything else, I don't believe you. It's easy to say that you would, but I think that you are not being truthful here.

To those who said they would jump overboard, I offer the following alternative.

Suppose you are surrounded by a school of man-eating sharks that would pull you to pieces in the most horrible way you can imagine. Your gonna jump, REALLY?

[Om]

I'd like to think that I'd do the honourable thing but really no one can say until you're in that situation. Why? Because throwing someone overboard would contradict my own personal set of morals, or so I'd hope, and everyone dying isn't going to accomplish anything.

[Ceska]

I like it, Mind if I sig that?
Not at all, I would feel honoured.

[Gitman00]

Responding to the original scenario, my knee-jerk reaction is to jump out myself. But then I re-read it, and thought about the fact that the other two passengers are unconscious. Without someone conscious to look after them, their chances of survival are much less.

But there is a bigger issue here. My initial decision to jump out is based on an eternal worldview. Death is not the end. I know where I'm going to end up when I die. I don't know that about the other two, so it makes more sense for me to be more concerned about their survival. So the real decision, for me, has nothing to do with my own survival. The choice for me is, do I save myself and almost certainly one other, or sacrifice myself on the chance that one of the others wakes up in time to save them both?

The more I think about it, the more I think the risk to the others is too great if I leave. They're both unconscious, on the open ocean and far enough away from land that we can't swim to shore. The boat is small enough to sink with three persons aboard. If it's at max capacity, two unconscious passengers wouldn't last very long. I'd feel guilty about it for a while, but I'd stay on board with one unconscious passenger and soothe my conscience with the knowledge that I saved one life.


If you are religious and beleive in God, do you think He would justify you in your decision to perform the natural instincts that have been instilled within you, or would you be condemned for not doing the "right thing?"

Well, this is oversimplifying things a bit. The choice is not whether to obey our instincts or not; it is which instincts to obey. We have an instinct for preservation of the species alongside our instinct for self-preservation. This is why, as has been pointed out, the scenario changes if one of the unconscious passengers is of the opposite sex. We have a myriad of different instincts telling us to do different things simultaneously. It is impossible to obey all of them at once. I don't believe it's possible to rationally justify a moral decision with "I was obeying my instincts."


Seriously, moral or not, you cannot really fight your self preservation instinct, thus killing another for your life is abolutly normal given the set of choices.

Do you really believe this? I dunno about you, but Belkar I am not. I reject the idea that everyone is ruled by his instincts, for the reasons stated above, as well as others. Heck, your theory fails just when you look at suicide rates. I have a hard time believing that someone throwing himself off a building is obeying his self-preservation instinct.


(And whatever you say about morals, instinct is a lot older and stronger than morals could ever be).

This is not the case in a Theistic worldview. A Theist believes that morals come from God. If God is eternal, then morality infinitely predates instinct.

[Khantalas]

Hmm... Must not... make comments about religion...

In any case, there is one thing I won't sacrifice willingly for anything in the world, and that is my own life. Any sacrifices I won't make for something are always in addition to it.

What can I say, I'm human. Of course I'm gonna let others go.

[Telonius]

Hmm, tough choice. My first reaction is to go through their pockets and throw them both over. But it's going to be a while before the rescuers come, and it's not mentioned if there's any food on board the lifeboat. But if I dump any bodies over, the sharks will be there soon, and extra weight in the boat means I won't be able to paddle as fast. Two people to eat means they're not as hungry, thus less likely to eat me. I also don't know if either person is sick in any way. So, yeah, I'd probably strip them both of anything remotely useful and non-identifying, toss them over, and start paddling like mad.

[averagejoe]

1. You only have a right to make this kind of choice about yourself and should therefore kill yourself.

That makes no sense. You make a choice either way; if you kill yourself, you are still choosing for the other two people.




But there is a bigger issue here. My initial decision to jump out is based on an eternal worldview. Death is not the end. I know where I'm going to end up when I die. I don't know that about the other two, so it makes more sense for me to be more concerned about their survival. So the real decision, for me, has nothing to do with my own survival. The choice for me is, do I save myself and almost certainly one other, or sacrifice myself on the chance that one of the others wakes up in time to save them both?

I honestly hadn't thought of that. That is the only justification for throwing oneself over that I've heard yet that makes some kind of sense. Who knows, if I had that sort of conviction then I might choose the same way.

I still don't see that it is necessarily a "right" choice, though. I don't see how this concept developed that doing certain things to others=bad, but doing those same things to yourself=good. I mean, I thought masochism was a socially unacceptable thing.

[Ashildr_the_Bard]

I would try to quickly assess if either of the two people were more injured and therefor less likely to survive than the other and put the more injured person over the side. If neither of them looked worse off, I would probably arbitarily choose one and let them go. If I'm the only conscious one, then I'm the only tangible chance the unconscious ones have of survival. Although I would definately feel terrible about it and probably require therapy if we ever got rescued.

[Ceska]

Do you really believe this? I dunno about you, but Belkar I am not. I reject the idea that everyone is ruled by his instincts, for the reasons stated above, as well as others. Heck, your theory fails just when you look at suicide rates. I have a hard time believing that someone throwing himself off a building is obeying his self-preservation instinct.
Suicides don't happen from one day to another. It takes a long time working against your instinct to kill yourself. If it wouldn't, I'd be dead by now. Of course every instinct can be worked upon and finally overcome, but not in a matter of seconds.


This is not the case in a Theistic worldview. A Theist believes that morals come from God. If God is eternal, then morality infinitely predates instinct.
Which I am not. Religion is a banned topic. And you're talking about monotheists (polytheists wouldn't say come from god).

[Gitman00]

Which I am not. Religion is a banned topic. And you're talking about monotheists (polytheists wouldn't say come from god).

You're right. I'm specifically talking about monotheists, although I think you'd find that even a pantheist would say that morals come from outside himself. And while religion is indeed a banned topic, that doesn't preclude every mention of God in a philosophical discussion. I don't think I brought up religion at all. I just wanted to clarify that your statement:


And whatever you say about morals, instinct is a lot older and stronger than morals could ever be

is not fact, but opinion, based on your worldview. I'm merely pointing out that there exist paradigms in which that statement isn't true.

EDIT:


Suicides don't happen from one day to another. It takes a long time working against your instinct to kill yourself. If it wouldn't, I'd be dead by now. Of course every instinct can be worked upon and finally overcome, but not in a matter of seconds.

Fair enough, but that's not what you originally said:


you cannot really fight your self preservation instinct

You now admit that it is possible to work against your instinct. I don't deny that it's often difficult. But it can be done.

[Koga]

Another thing to consider is this: If killing one to save 10 is considered acceptable, does it then become reasonable to say that killing 100000 to save 10 Million is acceptable?

The Koga would say nay because not all life value is equal. Sure we are born equal, clean slate, innocent-life. But how long does that last? A couple of years?

Eventualy humankind starts to think it's independant, and with that independance it starts to show why we can never have paradise as expressed in The Bible.. We always want more, never sastisfied, and we justly get nothing.

The Koga does not believe that everyone need be swiftly judged though, surely some are less deserving the others! So then one has to ask...

Is The Koga willing to take the gamble of risking 100,000 lives who's value may actually be greater then the ten-million? We do not know the value of X and Y lives, The Koga has not had time or means to know everybody's value.

But more then likely he'd go for it. Thier value is always less then his hahaha!

[Ceska]

Is not fact, but opinion, based on your worldview. I'm merely pointing out that there exist paradigms in which that statement isn't true.
I seriously doubt a human can state a fact. I can agree with a theory though. And as that, this is of course a theory, a scientific, but still a theory.


You now admit that it is possible to work against your instinct. I don't deny that it's often difficult. But it can be done.
Then that was misworded. What I originally meant was you can't fight your self preservation instinct under extrem circumstances. You can over time, but not in the few minutes until the boat is full.

[Flying Elephant]

Hmmm. If I had no idea whatsoever who anybody was, I don't know what I would do. But if I knew one of the people believed highly in reincarnation/better second life for the righteous, I would throw them overboard. Why? Because I would know that:
A:They would volunteer if they had a chance.
B:Because we would have more of a chance with a concious person. A 2 person lifeboat floating in water that could kill you would probably tip over if left to it's own devices.

[zeratul]

Why would I put them in the life boat? They would float to oblivion, where I could row to safety. I throw one of them off.

[Hoggy]

I'd throw one of the unconcious people overboard. I know I don't have the guts to do it to myself, and there's no point 3 dying when it only had to be 1.

I'm an *******, eeoh, eeoh, eeoh~

[Khayankh]

hugs and kisses to the person who started this thread!

what I would do: first, check the two strangers for injuries, pulse, breathing, etc. (which is more likely to survive - I know first aid), and if one is seriously injured then he/she goes over. second, check the two strangers for cross necklaces or other identifiers of religious views. Also check for a drivers' license / name / whatever. toss out the one who seems more likely to believe in an afterlife, say kaddish for them, and keep something of that person's that might be used to identify them to relatives later on. Monitor and care for the unconscious person whom I keep on board to the degree possible. If I don't know first aid, then the first step is basicaly guesswork, if I'm not Jewish and therefore don't believe in Kaddish, and neither of the others are seriously injured, then it gets messy.

@Koga: I would argue that all lives are valued equally, and you can't say that any one life is worth more than any other life. The exceptions are when one person poses a threat to others (e.g. a murderer, rapist, psychopath, etc.) or when one person is necessary for the survival of others (e.g. a mother who is breastfeeding her newborn in the days before baby formula).

[zeratul]

ixnay onway ethay eligionray.

[averagejoe]

The Koga would say nay because not all life value is equal. Sure we are born equal, clean slate, innocent-life. But how long does that last? A couple of years?

Is that so? And how does one measure the value of life? Can you put it to a sliding scale? x points for sills, y points for proffession, z points for intelligence, and t points for demeanor? x+y+z+t=value? And who are you to judge, anyways?

[Gitman00]

Is that so? And how does one measure the value of life? Can you put it to a sliding scale? x points for sills, y points for proffession, z points for intelligence, and t points for demeanor? x+y+z+t=value? And who are you to judge, anyways?

I make it a point to ignore people who post about themselves in the third person. Resist the bait, man!

[Koga]

Is that so? And how does one measure the value of life? Can you put it to a sliding scale? x points for sills, y points for proffession, z points for intelligence, and t points for demeanor? x+y+z+t=value?
Exacty! :D


And who are you to judge, anyways?
....He's---He's Judge Dredd... :(

[Lord Magtok]

There is a very simple solution to this question. Throw both guys overboard, and enjoy the quiet little cruise you have all to yourself, without any annoying inert bodies drooling on you.

[zeratul]

The Koga would say nay because not all life value is equal. Sure we are born equal, clean slate, innocent-life. But how long does that last? A couple of years?



Koga, after reading some of your posts I have come to the conclusion you know nothing about the value of life.

No one truly has less or more value. It's all perception. To you your girlfriend is more important than one of the strangers, to the strangers girlfriend/boyfriend, they are more important than you or your girlfriend. It's all perception.

[Aotrs Commander]

Kill unconcious people with Life Drain. Animate them as skeletons. Chuck excess flesh over board, excepting any intestines. Kill any sharks that appear with Lightning Bolt. Animate sharks as Zombies. Fashion a harness made of of intestines (first having the skeletons squeeze the excrement over the side, and dealing with any further sharks). Fit harness to shark Zombies.

Have shark Zombies tow me around looking for other survivors. Kill any other survivors. Animate as skeletons. Send skeletons down to loot ship via spare shark Zombies if at all feasible. Have skeletons do menial tasks I can't be arsed to do myself while shark Zombies set course for land (any direction, it doesn't matter, I don't need to eat). Lie back, relax and hum a merry tune.

[averagejoe]

Koga, after reading some of your posts I have come to the conclusion you know nothing about the value of life.

No one truly has less or more value. It's all perception. To you your girlfriend is more important than one of the strangers, to the strangers girlfriend/boyfriend, they are more important than you or your girlfriend. It's all perception.

Well, that said, my life is more important to me than some random guy's, but I respect that he would probably feel the same way, were the shoe on the other foot.

[AngelAndrius]

OK here's the real teaser.

Two unconcious people... No one else around

If you're a normal person and chuck one off the side of the boat, that is, if you're not too much of a coward and watch all three of you die, which, I admit, I might do. Mostly because I don't know if I could judge which one was more worthy to live or die.

But anyways... the real question is.

What do you tell the other person when they come to?

Do you keep your dark secret? Do you tell them? What if they ask where the other person is? What if they both got into the boat together and collapsed from their injuries? What if they knew each other? Basically, How do you deal with the aftermath?

[Koga]

No one truly has less or more value. It's all perception. To you your girlfriend is more important than one of the strangers, to the strangers girlfriend/boyfriend, they are more important than you or your girlfriend. It's all perception.
You are correct, but how many really act on these perceptions?

They'd much rather degrade themselves and submit to the subjectivity argument. "What is my value?" The Koga is not so weak, he doesn't allow the subjectivity of the matter to waver his objective feelings. Real or not is irrelevant, all that matters is who gets thier way.

So unless others are willing to act as The Koga, they will lose all oppurtunity, all value, because in The Koga's mind they're worthless or atleast less then he is, so they are going to have to depend on those perceptions to validate themself, cause no-one else is going too...


Simply put if you don't think like The Koga you're screwed.

And if you do think like The Koga well, you never knew any differant!

[Koga]

OK here's the real teaser.

Two unconcious people... No one else around

If you're a normal person and chuck one off the side of the boat, that is, if you're not too much of a coward and watch all three of you die, which, I admit, I might do. Mostly because I don't know if I could judge which one was more worthy to live or die.

But anyways... the real question is.

What do you tell the other person when they come to?
As tempting as it would be to tell the other person and watch'em squeel like a piggy, ehhh... nothing good could come of it. They'll just validate you as a threat and try to eventualy sabatoge you, or hate you, or whatever.

It's in your best interest to just not say anything. And if he asks what happend to the other guy, say something like he jumped off the boat. Who'd be around to say otherwise?


Basically, How do you deal with the aftermath?
The Koga does not validate this as something he has to deal with. It's not his friend, it's not his life, therefore it's not his problem. His relation to the problem was as breif as the time it took to chuck someone overboard. And The Koga has what it takes to judge people and decide life or death, that's why he loves jury duty...

[Winter_Wolf]

I'd toss one of the unconcious. I can't swim, and I have a good reason to fear drowning. Besides, two unconcious people in a lifeboat exposed to the elements would most likely result in their deaths anyway. So it's really the same thing as all three of us dying, since being the only concious person there means I'd be able to at least stave off death for one of them a little longer, but if I go in the drink I WILL die anyway, and like I said, the other two would most likely die of exposure.

Additional, if there are stormy seas, how the heck do you suppose two *unconcious* people would bail out the boat?

[Flying Elephant]

OK here's the real teaser.

Two unconcious people... No one else around

If you're a normal person and chuck one off the side of the boat, that is, if you're not too much of a coward and watch all three of you die, which, I admit, I might do. Mostly because I don't know if I could judge which one was more worthy to live or die.

But anyways... the real question is.

What do you tell the other person when they come to?

Do you keep your dark secret? Do you tell them? What if they ask where the other person is? What if they both got into the boat together and collapsed from their injuries? What if they knew each other? Basically, How do you deal with the aftermath?
I would never tell anyone. For all points and purposes, he slipped and drowned.

[Koga]

but I respect that he would probably feel the same way, were the shoe on the other foot.
Tis true, The Koga expects no man to sacrifice his or herself for The Koga. He holds people to know better values then he holds himself. But he expects those to follow his few (but stricly adhered to) values.

#1: You never hurt or betray your spouse. They are your other half, your better half. You are not at liberty to do anything negative to your spouse unless they did something to do first.

Reason: The Koga looks to his spouse as his God. He loves her, he worships her, he will do anything for her. Untill she does something to disprove her Godlyness. The Koga owes her everything and more. This is alot of the reason The Koga's so big on virginity, because to have sex before-that is a betrayel. It is saying to your partner "You are not special, you are just the current person I'm sticking it to" It shows you are untrustworthy, unworthy, and uncaring.. Or at the very least foolish and niave and gave into impuslve too quickly. That can be forgivven though, the former cannot.


#2: You never hurt or betray your children. (Yes, even if they're still in the womb).

Reason: If your spouse is God, then your children are like Jesus or Allah or something... children depend on you, they trust you, they respect and love you, and you didn't even to do anything to impress them! They just innately love you. And that makes you owe something to them.


#3: You never hurt or betray your pets.

Reason: About the same as children. It amazes The Koga how more people follow rule three then rule two, when pets could not begin to be as intimate a bond as children.


And #4: Act as if the world is watching.

This isn't so much a rule as a self-help suggestion. Whenever you do something, anything, or speak, act as if the whole world can see you. Your mother, your little-boy, Samual L. Jackson... everybody! When you truly master this art, you will never act wrongfuly. Because anytime you would get hostile or mean with something, you know you were in the right to do so, you will never feel shame or regret, and this is a step in the right direction toward happyness.

[ArchiviesTheQua]

My thoughts say that it would be pointless to kill myself for the sake of two unconcious people. And also, it would be dumb to kill all three of us. I would snoop through there stuff, see if one has children or something, throw out the worse person, (assuming they're in the same physical condition) and help them to safety.

That sounds really mean, I know. But it's a quick decision that must be made.

That's to the original question.

[Rex Idiotarum]

Cut both of them in half.

[scwizard]

I'm supprised so many people say that they'd throw themselves overboard. My guess is that banned topic is to blame.

Although if your chosing to throw yourself overboard that means you have no self worth and the world is probably better off with two people who may or may not have self worth than one unknown and you.

I would throw one of them overboard, I would do that because:
1. I don't want to die
2. It's the right thing to do

It's the right thing to do because if you don't value your own life, you don't value any life.

P.S. Throwing the second one overboard is needless murder. That should be obvious.

[Koga]

P.S. Throwing the second one overboard is needless murder. That should be obvious.
Well, to play devil's advocate. Atleast it's fair... you weren't discriminating, Lord knows people are so tornup over discriminating between people.. needless murder ftw!

[TSGames]

I would throw one of the unconscious people overboard. It is the right thing to do under the principle of double effect. I do not intend to kill them, my only intention is to save my life and the life of another person. The reason it must be an unconscious person and not myself who dies, is because having one conscious person increases the odds of survival among the two that are left and would be the best possible choice.

[sktarq]

What I wish and hope I would do: Toss one of the "not so awake" people overboard. Deny they were ever in the boat....perhaps mention someone trying to get into the boat before us if there were questions like fingerprints to deal with later.
What I fear I would do: Use the moral dilema as a cheap and cowardly way to justify my own suicide

[Om]

Although if your chosing to throw yourself overboard that means you have no self worth and the world is probably better off with two people who may or may not have self worth than one unknown and you.Or that you value others just as highly. Ohhh maybe you value your own morality and standards so highly that you'd be willing to die in order to maintain them? Perhaps one might not even buy into the whole notion of an individual's "worth" but simply do what they feel is "the right thing". Morals, you know.


It's the right thing to do because if you don't value your own life, you don't value any life.At last we have an answer. All out meandering have been in vain as scwizard has presented us with the one "right" answer. One further question though - if I am worth so much then why don't I throw both of them overboard? More rations and room on the raft for me.

[Aramil Liadon]

It's the right thing to do because if you don't value your own life, you don't value any life.
What if I am alive, but will die within a week of avian flu. I can steal some medication to save my own life, but doing so will infect and kill the rest of the human population. Should I steal the the medication anyways, because of your above rational? I think not.
Also, I think I need to work on making up ethical situations.

[Sisqui]

*reads thread*
*fails will save*
*makes post*

I am medically trained. I evaluate the two other people, determine their differential survival probability, and toss whoever comes up as worse off. It's called triage- save whoever has the best chance of survival. If I am the only one still conscious, that means I have the best chance and by preserving myself I greatly increase the other person's chances as well. Life is about making tough decisions, even when- or maybe even especially when- your conscience is morally outraged by the choices. However, in the real world, most people would try to find the "outside the box" choice that alows for the survival of all parties. (That is usually why all three die- people will waste valuable time looking for a solution that may not exist rather than making the hard choice they are presented with.)

[Hranat]

There is no good or evil in the real world. Being a good person doesn't actually help you. It only helps others. This way, the only benefits are if someone sees you perform your good act, so you can act the hero and everything, or you feel better yourself. We are raised to believe we must do good, but that is an illusion. It doesn't really help, that's what society wants us to believe. I say: Tough luck, my fellow lifeboaters, die.
I won't gain anything by dying, and it's easily to cover up as an accident that the others didn't make it. On the other hand, by throwing the other survivors overboard I gain survival, and their valuable possessions.
Call me evil if you like, I don't really care. I'm simply not indoctrinated.

[Tom_Violence]

Wow, this one really got me to thinking.

Throw an unconscious person over.

Next

Seriously though, this is so restricted that it doesn't really make for a good thought experiment. They way you've presented it gives three strict options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.

3 is clearly not an option.
2 is daft, as you've no way of being confident that either of the others would survive, especially without a conscious person to take care of them.
1 is your only option.

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario. Self-sacrifice in this instance cannot be rationally justified, as pointed out above. Where's the ethical dilemma? There isn't one really - the only question is would you be able to do what has to be done?

[SweetLikeLemons]

It's odd how the decision is so much harder when you are the one who actually has to throw them out. If, say, they are loading the lifeboats and you and one unconcious person are already in the boat and you know one more person will sink it, it would be much easier to say no when they bring over that second unconscious person than to personally shove them over the side.
If I am going to be brutally honest with myself, what would probably happen is I would dither until it was possibly too late and then I might throw someone out of the boat. I would like to believe I would make the "right" decision based on my morals, and sacrifice myself, but I know that isn't very likely. Failing that, I would like to believe that I would make the logical decision and throw one of the unconscious people out. Hopefully if I could see the danger clearly, the adrenaline would help me do it. But there is a chance I would get caught between my morals and my logic and doom us all. Go me!

[LCR]

Well, you can justify either course of action.

If you think, the ends justify the means, throw one of them over board.
If you think the ends never justify the means, go jump yourself.
If you think such a question is too hard for a human being to answer, stay passive.

All these possibilites can be morally justified.

Now, what would I do.
In general, I think that the ends never justify the means, but it's also right to say that this general rule is not always applicable on small-scale scenarios like this one.
I don't like the idea of me being governed by instincts, but I have to say that I would probably throw one of them out of the boat.

[Siwenna]

I would throw one of the other people over.

As for whether it's the right thing to do, I think so. You might be killing someone with the potential to cure cancer or something, but you can't know that. If I knew both people well and thought that they had a good deal more potential then me, then it might be different, but I'm not sure. My self-preservation insticts are pretty strong (in other words, I'm selfish.)

[Ranis]

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario.

The point isn't about discussing the scenario. The point behind the discussion is to talk about the choice. The choice and the reasons behind making them-not making this scenario more illogical than it already is, and not about making it more complicated to avoid the question or making the actual choice.

So yes, you're right, there isn't much discussion about the scenario. Because the scenario is essentially pointless. :smallwink:

[LCR]

Wow, this one really got me to thinking.

Throw an unconscious person over.

Next

Seriously though, this is so restricted that it doesn't really make for a good thought experiment. They way you've presented it gives three strict options:
1. Throw one of the unconscious people overboard.
2. Throw yourself overboard.
3. All three of you die.

3 is clearly not an option.
2 is daft, as you've no way of being confident that either of the others would survive, especially without a conscious person to take care of them.
1 is your only option.

Since there's no other details surrounding this, and inventing them defeats the point, there's not much real discussion about this scenario. Self-sacrifice in this instance cannot be rationally justified, as pointed out above. Where's the ethical dilemma? There isn't one really - the only question is would you be able to do what has to be done?

Um, I can rationally justify self-sacrifice, as far as morals are rational.
1. You're a human being, the difference between you and an animal is that you're not completely driven by your instincts but much rather have a choice. You're not willing to give this difference up, even if this means your death.
2. Who are you to put your right to live over the others rights to live? You can't, therefore you choose to kill yourself in order to save the rest.
3. Who are you to judge who's going to live and who's not? Depending on your world view, you might see this as God's duty or arrive at 2.


As you can see, there is not just one answer, that can be right. It depends on how you think.

[Tom_Violence]

Um, I can rationally justify self-sacrifice, as far as morals are rational.
1. You're a human being, the difference between you and an animal is that you're not completely driven by your instincts but much rather have a choice. You're not willing to give this difference up, even if this means your death.
2. Who are you to put your right to live over the others rights to live? You can't, therefore you choose to kill yourself in order to save the rest.
3. Who are you to judge who's going to live and who's not? Depending on your world view, you might see this as God's duty or arrive at 2.


As you can see, there is not just one answer, that can be right. It depends on how you think.

I'm guessing this was answers to the three choices, not an single chain of reasoning.

#1 still seems like the only choice to me.

Your reason for #2 seems silly. "I have no right to choose between me (a very much alive person) or someone else (a maybe nearly-dead person) so the only thing to do is kill myself so make things easier!!" Really?

As for #3, I can't see the rationale there either. If God/fate/etc. wanted you dead you wouldn't be there to make the decision.


The point isn't about discussing the scenario. The point behind the discussion is to talk about the choice. The choice and the reasons behind making them-not making this scenario more illogical than it already is, and not about making it more complicated to avoid the question or making the actual choice.

So yes, you're right, there isn't much discussion about the scenario. Because the scenario is essentially pointless. :smallwink:

I agree that the choice is not merely limited by the scenario, but on one's ethical approach to said scenario. All I'm saying is that given of the 3 very strict outcomes only 1 seems plausible as the other 2 appear irrational.

[LCR]

No, that wasn't a single chain of reasoning, those were three different ways to justify self-sacrifice.

#2 seems silly? So, the unconcious man is less of human than you are?

#3 No, but you could believe that you God wants you dead rather than the other two. If you don't believe in God, you could just as well go with #2, believing that you have no right to interfere with another person's right to live.

[ForzaFiori]

throw an unconscious person overboard. If something ever comes down to me or someone else, I'm gonna chose me.

[Tom_Violence]

No, that wasn't a single chain of reasoning, those were three different ways to justify self-sacrifice.

#2 seems silly? So, the unconcious man is less of human than you are?

#3 No, but you could believe that you God wants you dead rather than the other two. If you don't believe in God, you could just as well go with #2, believing that you have no right to interfere with another person's right to live.

Not less of a human. We're both human, presumably. Just one of us has a much higher chance of survival (~100% compared to ~?%).

God wanting you dead? That sounds on par with being a loon, and believing you ought to die, so you might as well throw yourself in. Hardly the most tenuable, logical position. Can you actually talk me through that, without sounding like a crazy?

[LCR]

Not less of a human. We're both human, presumably. Just one of us has a much higher chance of survival (~100% compared to ~?%).

God wanting you dead? That sounds on par with being a loon, and believing you ought to die, so you might as well throw yourself in. Hardly the most tenuable, logical position. Can you actually talk me through that, without sounding like a crazy?

Who says you have a higher chance of survival? The OP said "unconscious" not "as good as dead". And still, even if you'd have a higher chance of survival, you're both worth exactly the same and you both have the same rights. You can't just apply logic on his right to live and then throw him overboard, because it was the "logical" thing to do.

And a lot of religious people (all of them loons ...?) believe that God made a plan for them. How do they know it is His plan to throw someone overboard to save their life? It could equally be their life, God demands.

[Tom_Violence]

Who says you have a higher chance of survival? The OP said "unconscious" not "as good as dead". And still, even if you'd have a higher chance of survival, you're both worth exactly the same and you both have the same rights. You can't just apply logic on his right to live and then throw him overboard, because it was the "logical" thing to do.

And a lot of religious people (all of them loons ...?) believe that God made a plan for them. How do they know it is His plan to throw someone overboard to save their life? It could equally be their life, God demands.

I say they have a higher chance of survival. If I had to rate victims of a boat sinking in order of chances of staying alive, it would go something like this, from best to worst:

Alive, conscious, walking about, etc..
Alive, unconscious, cannot be woken.
Dead.

2 unconscious people in a boat in the middle of the ocean don't seem to stand a very good chance to me. And it seems a completely irrational chain of thought to look at two unconscious people in a boat and think "Well, they've got a better chance of it than me, over I go!". Of course everyone's life is worth the same, and of course everyone has the same rights. But in a situation where it is impossible to maintain everyone's rights then rights should be not be considered, as they cancel out and you hit a stalemate. If everyone's right to live was adhered to the boat would sink and everyone would die. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Also, why can't someone apply logic to a situation like this in order to arrive at a conclusion? Because its insensitive? It certainly can't be because it doesn't work, because it does.

The 'maybe God says...' or 'Fate decrees...' line doesn't really get anywhere, as it can be used in favour of any course of action, since whatever happens is 'the right one'. If everything really was down to Fate then I may as well stay in bed all day as I'll get what's coming to me regardless.

[pingcode20]

I'd love to say I would choose option 1 or 2, but that would be kidding myself.

Yes, I value my life above the two others. Yes, I have a sense of ethics.

And more likely than not, I'd end up fretting about it and trying to save both that I would get everyone on the boat killed anyway.

Unfortunately, as a matter of realistic evaluation, I would not be able to agree with the 'right' answer, nor can I agree with the 'self sacrifice' answer - I would end up in the 'stupid' answer segment; trying so hard like so many others to save everyone, and in the end saving no-one.

[LCR]

I say they have a higher chance of survival. If I had to rate victims of a boat sinking in order of chances of staying alive, it would go something like this, from best to worst:

Alive, conscious, walking about, etc..
Alive, unconscious, cannot be woken.
Dead.

2 unconscious people in a boat in the middle of the ocean don't seem to stand a very good chance to me. And it seems a completely irrational chain of thought to look at two unconscious people in a boat and think "Well, they've got a better chance of it than me, over I go!". Of course everyone's life is worth the same, and of course everyone has the same rights. But in a situation where it is impossible to maintain everyone's rights then rights should be not be considered, as they cancel out and you hit a stalemate. If everyone's right to live was adhered to the boat would sink and everyone would die. Seems a bit contradictory to me.

Also, why can't someone apply logic to a situation like this in order to arrive at a conclusion? Because its insensitive? It certainly can't be because it doesn't work, because it does.

The 'maybe God says...' or 'Fate decrees...' line doesn't really get anywhere, as it can be used in favour of any course of action, since whatever happens is 'the right one'. If everything really was down to Fate then I may as well stay in bed all day as I'll get what's coming to me regardless.

Of course it's possible to maintain everybody's rights. Self-sacrifice. You, too, have the right to live, but you can choose not to. The others can't.
And if you presume that the two unconscious persons are dead anyway, the whole scenario does not make any sense.

On logic and rationality:
I've found an interesting example on applying logic and rationality in "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini.
We presume that you act rationally, where ever it is possible. You know, that some things, like love, are not rational, but neither are they irrational, so you're fine with them. It is, for example, not rational to prefer strawberrys over apples, but not irrational. It would be irrational to buy apples if they both cost the same.
Now to the point: Somebody gives you a logical and rational argument on why it would make sense to detonate a bomb in, say, a mall (It's not about the argument, so don't discuss that). You can't see the flaw in his argument.
Would you go with his plan or would you feel bad because you might have missed the flaw in his conclusion? You don't have too much time to decide.


What you may find in this thought experiment, is a higher ranking instance than logic or reason. Morals could be that instance. Something you just fundamentally know, without explanation.

[Tom_Violence]

Of course it's possible to maintain everybody's rights. Self-sacrifice. You, too, have the right to live, but you can choose not to. The others can't.
And if you presume that the two unconscious persons are dead anyway, the whole scenario does not make any sense.


I can see that, yeah, but the curious thing here is that it seems their right to life trumps mine simply because I can do something about it. An interesting thing has occured to me actually, with regards to situations specifically like this. If by keeping one of the unconscious people in the boat will result in you dying, then that person is in fact, through no fault of their own, killing you. Thus, throwing them overboard is not murder, but self defense. Its an argument that comes up occasionally when considering abortions in which the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. Controversial, indeed. But with some merit?



On logic and rationality:
I've found an interesting example on applying logic and rationality in "The Pig that Wants to be Eaten" by Julian Baggini.
We presume that you act rationally, where ever it is possible. You know, that some things, like love, are not rational, but neither are they irrational, so you're fine with them. It is, for example, not rational to prefer strawberrys over apples, but not irrational. It would be irrational to buy apples if they both cost the same.
Now to the point: Somebody gives you a logical and rational argument on why it would make sense to detonate a bomb in, say, a mall (It's not about the argument, so don't discuss that). You can't see the flaw in his argument.
Would you go with his plan or would you feel bad because you might have missed the flaw in his conclusion? You don't have too much time to decide.


That's an interesting idea. I think in that situation I would be inclined to not help, principly because I know that arguments can be tricky things. :smallwink: Especially if I wasn't given time to analyse it. I mean, exploding a mall is something that I know to be wrong most of the time for very logical reasons. The chances of someone coming up with a scenario in which it is good to explode the mall are slim (not impossible, just unlikely). Thus, I would refer to the more likely answer - that blowing up the mall is bad, and I've missread the argument.



What you may find in this thought experiment, is a higher ranking instance than logic or reason. Morals could be that instance. Something you just fundamentally know, without explanation.

Sadly, something without explanation is essentially useless, especially terms of helping you work anything out. Interestingly enough, morality would be factored in to the above chain of reasoning - I know that most of the time blowing up a mall is bad because of the suffering it would cause, therefore for the convincing-argument to succeed it would have to make me believe that there wasn't anything immoral about this particular mall exploding. And that's pretty unlikely, to I would decline.

[LCR]

I know it is really hard to imagine that but it doesn't really matter what kind of reason there is for blowing up a mall. It's only purpose is to show that logic can be flawed, even if you don't see the flaw. Don't you ever encounter instances where you know something would be logical, yet you feel the other way?
Let me quote David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions".


I can see that, yeah, but the curious thing here is that it seems their right to life trumps mine simply because I can do something about it. An interesting thing has occured to me actually, with regards to situations specifically like this. If by keeping one of the unconscious people in the boat will result in you dying, then that person is in fact, through no fault of their own, killing you. Thus, throwing them overboard is not murder, but self defense. Its an argument that comes up occasionally when considering abortions in which the pregnancy is likely to kill the mother. Controversial, indeed. But with some merit?


Not really. Their lifes do not trump yours, but -I admit that- you are the only one who can actually do something. The other possibility, following this train of thought, would be to stay in the boat, by which all three would be equally dead.

[Tom_Violence]

I know it is really hard to imagine that but it doesn't really matter what kind of reason there is for blowing up a mall. It's only purpose is to show that logic can be flawed, even if you don't see the flaw. Don't you ever encounter instances where you know something would be logical, yet you feel the other way?
Let me quote David Hume: "Reason is, and ought only to be, the slave of the passions".


I know, and I am agreeing with you there. I know the reason for the bombing isn't the point, and I've certainly seen my fair share of dodgy logic over the years. What I am saying is that gut reaction that I feel would probably need to be supported by something, at least. And in this instance it would be the very low probability of bombing being the right course. I'd be dissatisfied if someone's sole reason for not acting was simply 'it feels a bit off, to me'. I suppose perhaps Hume and I diverge at that point. :smalltongue:

[LCR]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

[OverdrivePrime]

These either-or choices are pretty silly for analyzing a situation with such a flimsy set-up. I'll do my best, however.

I'm going to assume that the seas are calm, because otherwise leaving two unconscious people unattended on a life boat in stormy seas is condemning both of them to death.

Being proficient in wilderness first-aid, I'll assess the situation. If both unconscious people are in a strong condition to survive with time (strong vitals, no severe burning or rapid blood loss, limbs and head all in place, etc...), I'd leave the two of them on the boat and take my chances at sea. I can tread water in calm conditions for quite a while, more when I inflate my jeans and use them as a temporary floatation device to give myself a break. Maybe I'll get lucky and find some flotsam to rest on while waiting for the Coasties to show up.
I don't know that whoever's off the boat is going to die, and I've got tremendous faith in my abilities.

I write with 95% certainty that even if I knew that I would die (some extraplanar jackass shows me the future or something), I'd still jump out of the boat, knowing that otherwise I'd have to spend the rest of my life reminding myself that someone else died when I had the opportunity to save them. I'd have trouble living a sane life with that over my head.

If the seas are pretty bad or one of them has low vitals, then I've got a much tougher choice. I'd take care of the most robust, most survivable of the two, and sorrowfully pitch the other overboard, after rummaging through their pockets for knives, lighters, granola bars, anything useful for survival. Gotta do my part where I can to help evolution along for our species. I'd then do everything in my power to keep the boat in survivable condition and protect my passenger. If the two are in equal condition, but different genders, I'd save the female because it's been hard-wired into me that women are more valuable to the species than men. (Perhaps some sort of primeval 'getting rid of potential competition' thing.) When I get back to land, I'll check myself into counseling for a few months and visit the family of the person I dumped overboard.

[Ranis]

These either-or choices are pretty silly for analyzing a situation with such a flimsy set-up. I'll do my best, however.

<snip>

All I can say is thanks for over-analyzing things that were not part of the original intent nor purpose of this thread.

[Tom_Violence]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

Absolutely. I personally agreed very much with Hume's 'moral sense' theory when I first came across it, and still do to a very large extent. Thing is I found it only of any real use in explaining why someone acts morally, and not so good on whether or not they did the right thing, nor for why it would be the right thing. But then Hume has often been considered quite skeptical and borderline nihilist, so I guess perhaps those issues never came up. :smallwink:

[LCR]

For "applied" or political philosophy, I've found Max Weber to be most interesting. I don't see the point in nihilism (I know I should, since I'm German ... *Lebowski .... cough*, so I'm drawn to Weber's rather pragmatic approach.

[Jayabalard]

All I can say is thanks for over-analyzing things that were not part of the original intent nor purpose of this thread.All I can say is to try to come up with a less meaningless scenario next time, preferably one with less false assumptions. That'll give you a better chance of people answering and staying within the given parameters.

[Triggerhappy938]

Kill one, eat him for nutrition, toss the other one overboard if he wakes up and asks questions. Moral? No. Logical? Aye.

[averagejoe]

As these scenarios go, reality is always different. I, too, would be very dissatisfied with a politician, if he told me he didn't vote for a bill because of some feeling he momentarily felt. But it's always useful to reflect about morals and logic and question your actions. In that way, philosophy truly is the queen of all sciences.

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

[LCR]

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

That's my bad, actually. In German, philosophy is part of the Geisteswissenschaften, Wissenschaften meaning sciences. I've just checked with a dictionary and found the correct translation to be "the humanities".

[Aramil Liadon]

I'd say that OverdrivePrime has expressed my feelings on the situation fairly well.

In response to an earlier comment about how being 'good' only makes sense if there are those who will recognize it and reward you, I would say that that's not what being 'good' is. 'Good' is acting selflessly to aid others, with no specific reason other than to help them.
That makes me sound like a communist, doesn't it.

[averagejoe]

That's my bad, actually. In German, philosophy is part of the Geisteswissenschaften, Wissenschaften meaning sciences. I've just checked with a dictionary and found the correct translation to be "the humanities".

Drat, and I was hoping for a rousing debate on the topic. :smallwink:


'Good' is acting selflessly to aid others, with no specific reason other than to help them.

Is aiding yourself not also 'good?' Altruism is all well and good, but at the same time you have the same right to live as anyone else. If it is wrong to harm a person, then, by the same reasoning, is it not wrong to harm oneself?

[Tom_Violence]

Er... philosophy isn't a science. Not by a long shot.

If only it was, then maybe people wouldn't keep pretending that there are no rules or structure to it. :smallconfused:

[LCR]

Oh come on, rules are for the weak ...

[KoDT69]

It was asked earlier "Do the ends justify the means?" to which there is one simple answer. ALWAYS. It doesn't matter what situation you're in, any decision you make in your right state of mind is being justified to you by your own reasoning. Even if you are jumping to your own death to save the 2 others that have no chance anyway, you're still justifying your action in your own mind. You have a right to live same as any other. I agree that no one person can be a good judge of which one dies in this situation, but the simple fact is that fate has thrust the decision upon you. You have to choose, even killing yourself is still taking a life and possible condemning the other 2 to death since they are out cold and on the ocean. Even if you believe that your morals come from some higher power in the universe, you still justify your actions with that set of beliefs. I don't believe that chucking one over the side is the wrong action. I have a family that needs me.
Maybe the "outside the box while still within the limits of this scenario" right thing to do would be to identify the one going over, and find his family and help them out as best you can. I'm sure if the other 2 people have wallets, you'll know if one has children or not. If one of them is not a parent, they are out of luck. Sorry.
So I guess my question is really:
When DON'T the ends justify the means? :smallconfused:

[LCR]

It was asked earlier "Do the ends justify the means?" to which there is one simple answer. ALWAYS. It doesn't matter what situation you're in, any decision you make in your right state of mind is being justified to you by your own reasoning. Even if you are jumping to your own death to save the 2 others that have no chance anyway, you're still justifying your action in your own mind. You have a right to live same as any other. I agree that no one person can be a good judge of which one dies in this situation, but the simple fact is that fate has thrust the decision upon you. You have to choose, even killing yourself is still taking a life and possible condemning the other 2 to death since they are out cold and on the ocean. Even if you believe that your morals come from some higher power in the universe, you still justify your actions with that set of beliefs. I don't believe that chucking one over the side is the wrong action. I have a family that needs me.
Maybe the "outside the box while still within the limits of this scenario" right thing to do would be to identify the one going over, and find his family and help them out as best you can. I'm sure if the other 2 people have wallets, you'll know if one has children or not. If one of them is not a parent, they are out of luck. Sorry.
So I guess my question is really:
When DON'T the ends justify the means? :smallconfused:

Sorry, but what I meant was the difference between Gesinnungs-and Verantwortungsethik (http://www.ethical-perspectives.be/viewpic.php?LAN=E&TABLE=EP&ID=838), that's different from justifying a certain decision. You're always doing that.

[Tom_Violence]

So I guess my question is really:
When DON'T the ends justify the means? :smallconfused:

You really want to know? Well, here's my favourite example against a utilitarian school of thought:

A man has to go in for some very routine surgery. The doctor discovers that this man has no family, no friends, basically no one that will miss him. The man is a perfectly healthy human being, minus whatever he needs to have surgery for. The doctor suggests a new technique for this surgery involving a general anesthetic, and the man agrees. However, for this man this is The Big Sleep. The doctor harvests the man for his organs, allowing a lot more people to go on and live much better lives.

But the man has been undeniably deceived and murdered. Seems to me that the ends don't justify the means here.

Of course, if you want a very simple example of when the ends don't justify the means, how about a completely disproportionate response? Say, killing 10 people to cure one person's cold. Hyperbole, of course, but clearly a case where the ends do not justify the means.

[KoDT69]

And in either of those 2 examples, where is the forced choice? In both cases they are not only extreme, but unnecessary. A doctor tricking a patient into death to harvest organs is not solving anything, it's just evil. Killing 10 people is also pointless to try and cure a common cold. My statement is being taken out of context. It was stated for this scenario, that no matter what choice you make in the lifeboat, the ends justify the means. In your 2 scenarios it's just random acts of evil, which I would consider the person making those choices to also not be in a rational state of mind, which was also one of my pre-qualifying statements. I said earlier "if making a decision in a rational state of mind" or something along that line of thought. Point is that if you are making a choice because you are being forced, it's much different than just making a choice that you didn't have to make. Evil is still evil.

And for the record I have no set school of thought. Too many things are subjective to situation. The greater good is always a factor, or the old expression "taking the lesser of 2 evils"... but only if it's absolutely necessary.

[LCR]

Sorry, I don't get your point. Could you clarify why exactly you disagree with the theory of two (arguably) contradicting ethics, namely "the ends justify the means" and "the ends can never justify the means"?

[KoDT69]

The point is that any decision and its level of right and wrong are all in the perception. The ends justify the means in the mind of the person making the decision unless they are in an irrational state of mind. The guy who kills 10 to save 1 person has made that decision because he feels there is a justified reason for it. It's not the popular vote that it's the right thing, but the decider's perception is really the only one that counts at decision time. The question "Do the ends justify the means" is very subjective to perception. If you have 3 people in a room making a decision and they all are crazy, their collective right answer could be justified in their eyes, and complete whacko to the rest of the world. When a decision of life or death is made, it's normally a quick instictive response, with little time to weigh pros and cons. Sometimes you just react. The point is that you always go with the decision that makes you feel justified. "Justified" is the operative word. Does it mean justified by law? by morals? by tradition? by bellief? by taking the lesser of 2 evils? See, it's all subjective to the situation.

[North]

Im not gonna lie, Yeah Id be leaving one of the other people on the boat. Two people who are not waking up are doomed anyways. Like its already been said its triage, you save who you can.



Maybe the "outside the box while still within the limits of this scenario" right thing to do would be to identify the one going over, and find his family and help them out as best you can. I'm sure if the other 2 people have wallets, you'll know if one has children or not. If one of them is not a parent, they are out of luck. Sorry.


Note to self: Get pictures of fake kids.

[Tom_Violence]

And in either of those 2 examples, where is the forced choice? In both cases they are not only extreme, but unnecessary. A doctor tricking a patient into death to harvest organs is not solving anything, it's just evil. Killing 10 people is also pointless to try and cure a common cold. My statement is being taken out of context. It was stated for this scenario, that no matter what choice you make in the lifeboat, the ends justify the means. In your 2 scenarios it's just random acts of evil, which I would consider the person making those choices to also not be in a rational state of mind, which was also one of my pre-qualifying statements. I said earlier "if making a decision in a rational state of mind" or something along that line of thought. Point is that if you are making a choice because you are being forced, it's much different than just making a choice that you didn't have to make. Evil is still evil.

And for the record I have no set school of thought. Too many things are subjective to situation. The greater good is always a factor, or the old expression "taking the lesser of 2 evils"... but only if it's absolutely necessary.

The doctor killing the guy is solving something - many healthy organs are gained so lots of people can get on with their lives. In the other situation a cold is cured.

If you want to talk just about this scenario, I still disagree. I can follow someone arguing that throwing an innocent person out of the boat is murder, and that that is unacceptable, even to save your own life. Jumping out of the boat might be unacceptable, as suicide may be ruled out under any circumstances. And letting everyone die could well be considered unjustified.

Your point about the 'rational state of mind' is begging the question. You've said that people who do these things are evil, and not in a rational state of mind, thus denying me them as counter-examples.

Also, I don't think the 'being forced' thing justifies absolutely any course of action whatsoever. Say a guy puts a gun to your head and forces you to do something that only you can do, which results in the deaths of millions. Is that then okay, just because you're forced?

[Tom_Violence]

The point is that any decision and its level of right and wrong are all in the perception. The ends justify the means in the mind of the person making the decision unless they are in an irrational state of mind. The guy who kills 10 to save 1 person has made that decision because he feels there is a justified reason for it. It's not the popular vote that it's the right thing, but the decider's perception is really the only one that counts at decision time. The question "Do the ends justify the means" is very subjective to perception. If you have 3 people in a room making a decision and they all are crazy, their collective right answer could be justified in their eyes, and complete whacko to the rest of the world. When a decision of life or death is made, it's normally a quick instictive response, with little time to weigh pros and cons. Sometimes you just react. The point is that you always go with the decision that makes you feel justified. "Justified" is the operative word. Does it mean justified by law? by morals? by tradition? by bellief? by taking the lesser of 2 evils? See, it's all subjective to the situation.

Ah, we've strayed into the realms of 'there may be a subjective element to this, thus there can be no right or wrong answer'. Whoops.

Just because different people which reach different decisions, all of which may seem best to the individuals at the time, doesn't mean none of them can be right or wrong. I can provide examples if you wish.

[KoDT69]

The doctor killing the guy is solving something - many healthy organs are gained so lots of people can get on with their lives. In the other situation a cold is cured.

This is not a choice the doctor had to make, he did this on his own. There is no reason he should have even contemplated this course of action unless he were evil to begin with.


If you want to talk just about this scenario, I still disagree. I can follow someone arguing that throwing an innocent person out of the boat is murder, and that that is unacceptable, even to save your own life. Jumping out of the boat might be unacceptable, as suicide may be ruled out under any circumstances. And letting everyone die could well be considered unjustified.

The point is that in the mind of the person making the decision they feel justified, and that's why they chose that particular course of action. Other people looking at it as justified or not is irrelevant, because they weren't there, it wasn't them, and they didn't make the decision. Their opinion comes after the fact and is therefore not factored in when the decider makes the choice.


Your point about the 'rational state of mind' is begging the question. You've said that people who do these things are evil, and not in a rational state of mind, thus denying me them as counter-examples.

My goal was not to eliminate any options or examples. I'm saying that you have to be in the right state of mind to make a (self)justified decision. If you are tripping on acid, you really don't know what's going on.


Also, I don't think the 'being forced' thing justifies absolutely any course of action whatsoever. Say a guy puts a gun to your head and forces you to do something that only you can do, which results in the deaths of millions. Is that then okay, just because you're forced?

The point of being forced is that you have to make a decision one way or the other. Perform your task or get shot. Both options are up to you. You would make a decision that you feel justified making. You wouldn't get an opportunity to call your friend at that point and ask a second opinion... you just make the call. The problem is not all people have the same reasoning and likewise have different definitions of "justified" in their own minds. I'm from the USA. I'm sure somebody out there hates the USA so much that anything I do would seem irrational, stupid, and evil to that person. That's their perception though. I could have donated mone to flood victims from the hurricanes, but somebody out there could argue that it wasn't the "right" thing to do for some reason or another.

[KoDT69]

Ah, we've strayed into the realms of 'there may be a subjective element to this, thus there can be no right or wrong answer'. Whoops.

Just because different people which reach different decisions, all of which may seem best to the individuals at the time, doesn't mean none of them can be right or wrong. I can provide examples if you wish.

Again though, the examples would be right or wrong in your opinion according to your beliefs. Your view of right and wrong makes all the difference. What is right to you may be wrong to another. I think you meant to say right or wrong according to X. There has to be something to compare it to, and all people have a different X to compare with. :smallconfused:

[Tom_Violence]

Again though, the examples would be right or wrong in your opinion according to your beliefs. Your view of right and wrong makes all the difference. What is right to you may be wrong to another. I think you meant to say right or wrong according to X. There has to be something to compare it to, and all people have a different X to compare with. :smallconfused:

Not so.

There is a box on a table, and three people have to guess what's in the box. All the know is that it contains a small animal of some kind. Person A thinks it is a beetle, Person B thinks it is an ant, Person C thinks it is a kitten. There is very much a right and a wrong here, according to what is, not according to Person X. All people here have the same thing to compare, i.e. what actually is in the box.

Again: Just because different people which reach different decisions, all of which may seem best to the individuals at the time, doesn't mean none of them can be right or wrong.


This is not a choice the doctor had to make, he did this on his own. There is no reason he should have even contemplated this course of action unless he were evil to begin with.

Again, begging the question. Can someone not argue that since the doctor saved many more lives than the one that was lost, he did a good thing? And he's a doctor - its his responsibility to do what he can for his patients. So in a very real sense it was a decision he had to make. Interestingly, you've said that simply by contemplating killing the guy, he's gone and done something that automatically makes him evil - i.e. a case where the ends cannot justify the means.

[KoDT69]

Not so.

There is a box on a table, and three people have to guess what's in the box. All the know is that it contains a small animal of some kind. Person A thinks it is a beetle, Person B thinks it is an ant, Person C thinks it is a kitten. There is very much a right and a wrong here, according to what is, not according to Person X. All people here have the same thing to compare, i.e. what actually is in the box.

Again: Just because different people which reach different decisions, all of which may seem best to the individuals at the time, doesn't mean none of them can be right or wrong.

This is a bad example dude. I'm not trying to be rude in the least, but that is a different type of right and wrong. That example is fact/fiction. The one we are discussing a moral right and wrong.



Again, begging the question. Can someone not argue that since the doctor saved many more lives than the one that was lost, he did a good thing? And he's a doctor - its his responsibility to do what he can for his patients. So in a very real sense it was a decision he had to make. Interestingly, you've said that simply by contemplating killing the guy, he's gone and done something that automatically makes him evil - i.e. a case where the ends cannot justify the means.

And no. Nowhere did I say he did a good thing by killing a guy. I stated that it was not a decision he should have been making. Why does the doctor think that killing is even an option a healthy guy in this situation? The lifeboat is an instict/survival question. The doctor should not even be thinking about anybody but his patient because the doctor has a job to do, and a set of guidelines that accompany it. I would see killing a healthy person in a non-survivalist type situation to be cold-blooded murder. But again, if the doctor chops up the guy to help 10 others, it's justified in the doctor's mind and not yours. I would disagree with the doctor.

[Tom_Violence]

This is a bad example dude. I'm not trying to be rude in the least, but that is a different type of right and wrong. That example is fact/fiction. The one we are discussing a moral right and wrong.

Moral Realism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_realism)



And no. Nowhere did I say he did a good thing by killing a guy. I stated that it was not a decision he should have been making. Why does the doctor think that killing is even an option a healthy guy in this situation? The lifeboat is an instict/survival question. The doctor should not even be thinking about anybody but his patient because the doctor has a job to do, and a set of guidelines that accompany it. I would see killing a healthy person in a non-survivalist type situation to be cold-blooded murder. But again, if the doctor chops up the guy to help 10 others, it's justified in the doctor's mind and not yours. I would disagree with the doctor.

I think we've finally got down to the real crux of what you're saying. Correct me if I'm wrong - you think that in morality no one can be right or wrong, and thus presumably no one can even reach a better decision than anyone else? Essentially, some form of Subjectivism. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethical_subjectivism) In which case discussion on a topic like this is probably pointless, as its just shouting into the wind at this stage.

[KoDT69]

What I'm saying is that killing in a survivalist situation will be perceived one way, while the doctor killing a healthy patient in a hospital will be viewed differently. My main point is that for 2 people to make an equal moral decision, they need a common set of beliefs or rules to compare to. It's like having a rules debate in which there are no rules. There can't be a solid base to judge a decision if both parties have different moral values. And I don't deny that a person can be morally right or wrong, it's just subject to perception of those surrounding them. To us the Terrorist units are morally wrong. To the Terrorists, we are morally wrong. Which one counts to you? Is one more right than the other? Is your response to this subjective to your beliefs? :smallconfused:

Now what we would need is criteria to base the decision. Saying that the person in the lifeboat believes in the preservation of life, abiding by the law, and loving your fellow humans. In that case the right decision might be to jump off themselves to protect the others. If the person making the decision is a contract hitman for the mafia, there might not even be a second thought over chucking both of the knocked-out people into the ocean. There has to be a solid base for decision, like in the d20 gaming thread, all conversations are based strictly on RAW as it is the one universal set of rules we all have access to. In this moral debate, there is no RAW because each person is morally and mentally different. How do you solve that? I believe that the OP was asking for an answer according to each poster, not collectively of the forum.

[Tom_Violence]

What I'm saying is that killing in a survivalist situation will be perceived one way, while the doctor killing a healthy patient in a hospital will be viewed differently. My main point is that for 2 people to make an equal moral decision, they need a common set of beliefs or rules to compare to. It's like having a rules debate in which there are no rules. There can't be a solid base to judge a decision if both parties have different moral values. And I don't deny that a person can be morally right or wrong, it's just subject to perception of those surrounding them. To us the Terrorist units are morally wrong. To the Terrorists, we are morally wrong. Which one counts to you? Is one more right than the other? Is your response to this subjective to your beliefs? :smallconfused:

First off, a definition of right and wrong that's dependent on people's opinions isn't something that I'd be satisfied with. You don't apply those standards to most things, so why with morals? It seems to me that you view morals as being purely subjective.

Also, two people having different moral values may make it difficult for them to reach an agreement, but it doesn't mean that someone from an outside perspective cannot judge them. Here's another non-moral example to demonstrate (non-moral because it should be something we can agree on): two people go to buy a vehicle to move house with. One wants a sports car, because it looks good and that's what is important to them, the other wants a big van, because its got lots of space. The two themselves may not agree, but (hopefully) from an outside perspective we can judge who has got it right.



Now what we would need is criteria to base the decision. Saying that the person in the lifeboat believes in the preservation of life, abiding by the law, and loving your fellow humans. In that case the right decision might be to jump off themselves to protect the others. If the person making the decision is a contract hitman for the mafia, there might not even be a second thought over chucking both of the knocked-out people into the ocean. There has to be a solid base for decision, like in the d20 gaming thread, all conversations are based strictly on RAW as it is the one universal set of rules we all have access to. In this moral debate, there is no RAW because each person is morally and mentally different. How do you solve that? I believe that the OP was asking for an answer according to each poster, not collectively of the forum.

This is more along the right lines. And these criteria very much do exist. The question then becomes 'which criteria are more relevant/consistent/rational etc.?' These are just some of the things that we do in moral philosophy. :biggrin:

[Thinker]

In this situation, one person must die. Unfortunately my favorite person is one of those threatened. I would absolutely choose to save myself than a stranger. Anyone who says otherwise is probably lying out of a false sense of altruism. Once you're dead, its game over. Too bad I do all my favorite things like eating, breathing, etc.

[Sisqui]

Ah, we've strayed into the realms of 'there may be a subjective element to this, thus there can be no right or wrong answer'. Whoops.


As someone else once said, "Curse you, moral relativity thread!"

[Tom_Violence]

The point is that in the mind of the person making the decision they feel justified, and that's why they chose that particular course of action. Other people looking at it as justified or not is irrelevant, because they weren't there, it wasn't them, and they didn't make the decision. Their opinion comes after the fact and is therefore not factored in when the decider makes the choice.

Something tremendously obvious just occurred to me - given that this is a hypothetical thought experiment we are all imagining being in the same situation, having to make the same choice. So we all have a basis for judging other people's actions, right? Since we're all 'there' as much as each other? Unless you are really saying that the only difference of any true importance is the person's own very individual personality - i.e. hardcore subjectivism.


As someone else once said, "Curse you, moral relativity thread!"

Curse them? No. Shun and pity them? Why, indeed. :amused:

And maybe try and educate them, depending on exactly how bored you are. Its been a slow summer so far.

[Sisqui]

Originally Posted by KoDT69
The point is that in the mind of the person making the decision they feel justified, and that's why they chose that particular course of action. Other people looking at it as justified or not is irrelevant, because they weren't there, it wasn't them, and they didn't make the decision. Their opinion comes after the fact and is therefore not factored in when the decider makes the choice.

I think something should be clearly stated here about the whole moral relativity controversy. What people WILL do depends on who they are as individuals. What people SHOULD do is an entirely different debate. The first is chiefly concerned with ALL of the factors a human being weighs when making a decision. The second is concerned only with ethics. You seem to be arguing the first case while Tom_Violence is arguing the second. You are talking at cross purposes it seems.

[KoDT69]

I think something should be clearly stated here about the whole moral relativity controversy. What people WILL do depends on who they are as individuals. What people SHOULD do is an entirely different debate. The first is chiefly concerned with ALL of the factors a human being weighs when making a decision. The second is concerned only with ethics. You seem to be arguing the first case while Tom_Violence is arguing the second. You are talking at cross purposes it seems.

Finally, somebody really read and understood what I posted. My main point is that MORALS are subjective to the individual. Even the 2 most identically matched people could make a different decision for different reasons. In a life or death situation, the public view of your choice isn't a factor. The point of this thread is to ask what each poster would do and why, not to judge them for their choice. There are too many variables for there to be a set right choice. Look at this thread. I would guess that most of us have certain similarities but we have many varied answers and justifications of those answers.

[Sisqui]

Finally, somebody really read and understood what I posted. My main point is that MORALS are subjective to the individual. Even the 2 most identically matched people could make a different decision for different reasons. In a life or death situation, the public view of your choice isn't a factor. The point of this thread is to ask what each poster would do and why, not to judge them for their choice. There are too many variables for there to be a set right choice. Look at this thread. I would guess that most of us have certain similarities but we have many varied answers and justifications of those answers.

Perhaps it would also be better to approach the question incrementally rather than categorically. There is no one right answer, but rather several. However, there are clearly wrong answers, each in their own varying degrees. Even highly ethical people may disagree about the morality of tossing one person out v. jumping out themselves. What matters more than the act is the reason behind it. If you toss one out because you honestly believe both you and the two in the boat will die if you jump, then by your lights you have made the right choice because two people survived. If you jump because you think the other two have a chance to make it and your sense of ethics demands that the person being sacrificed be both conscious of the choice and mentally competent to make it, then again, by your own lights, you have made the right choice. And most other people will agree that these choices are acceptable solutions even if they would, themselves, have chosen the other. However, if, as some people who I hope were only joking suggested, you decide to rummage through their belongings, steal their stuff, toss one and then demand sexual favors from the survivor, well, I think we can pretty much say that, even if you are acting within the constraints of your own moral code (which seems to consist of "Me want!") you would be well outside of just about everbody else's.

[Tom_Violence]

Finally, somebody really read and understood what I posted. My main point is that MORALS are subjective to the individual. Even the 2 most identically matched people could make a different decision for different reasons. In a life or death situation, the public view of your choice isn't a factor.

I read and understood that. I just fundamentally disagree. I don't think morals are purely subjective. Even if there is no objective morality I don't think people should be accustomed to thinking that morality is just 'up to them'. But then, I'm a die-hard pragmatist.


The point of this thread is to ask what each poster would do and why, not to judge them for their choice.


What is the right thing to do?

It seems to me that at least some judgment is asked for. Asking people's simple opinions is boring - you may as well inquire as to their favourite colour.


However, there are clearly wrong answers ... if, as some people who I hope were only joking suggested, you decide to rummage through their belongings, steal their stuff, toss one and then demand sexual favors from the survivor, well, I think we can pretty much say that, even if you are acting within the constraints of your own moral code (which seems to consist of "Me want!") you would be well outside of just about everbody else's.

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a failing of logic to me. You've gone from 'the vast majority of people would disagree' to 'it is wrong', and this is invalid.

[Cyrano]

Remember they are of YOUR disposition. if you toss someone overboard for sex, then they'll want to do the same.

Let's see here.

Have I met them?
If I have not, I will toss myself. Or more likely, hang myself overboard and fall asleep, because I'm a coward.
If I have, then it's tough. I'm not so sure how much I would like myself if I met me. I would probably toss myself off if I knew they were my own disposition, as the title post says, because I A, couldn't choose between any of me, and B, because I would find so many glaring flaws (Many probably made up as a cause of low self esteem, caused by being trapped on a freakin' boat) that I would throw myself over, again. But if I hadn't met them, I'd probably throw someone else over.

[Koga]

This really depended on my relationship with all the people onboard now didn't it?

If it could be helped, I'd kill the person that meant the least to me.

Above all else I would insure my own survival. If it camedown to someone that I loved (correction: someone that loved me) I'd throw myself overboard because I would want to die looking like a hero so I would continued to be loved.

Any other circumstance, any sacrifice would be well worth keeping me alive. Anyone else who also was kept alive is just an added bonus.

[KoDT69]

I read and understood that. I just fundamentally disagree. I don't think morals are purely subjective. Even if there is no objective morality I don't think people should be accustomed to thinking that morality is just 'up to them'. But then, I'm a die-hard pragmatist.

Sorry dude. We disagree and that's fine. You are really pressing an ethics issue moreso than morals. The point is YOUR MORALS ARE UP TO YOU. How society views your morals is a different story. Even in the strictest group in the world abiding by the same printed and required moral doctrine, there will still be multiple choices made from the same scenario, and all justified in the eyes of that person making the decision. Pragmatist or not, your morals are up to you alone.


Quoted from Wikipedia
Personal morals define and distinguish among right and wrong intentions, motivations or actions, as these have been learned, engendered, or otherwise developed within individuals. By contrast, ethics are more correctly applied as the study of broader social systems within whose context morality exists. Morals define whether I should kill my neighbour Joe when he steals my tractor; ethics define whether it is right or wrong for one person to kill another in a dispute over property.

Even in the Wiki example, it says morals are what guides if you think you should do something. Ethics define right or wrong for a given situation. Guess what, that means it's subjective to situation by definition. Hmmm.

[Tom_Violence]

Sorry dude. We disagree and that's fine. You are really pressing an ethics issue moreso than morals. The point is YOUR MORALS ARE UP TO YOU. How society views your morals is a different story. Even in the strictest group in the world abiding by the same printed and required moral doctrine, there will still be multiple choices made from the same scenario, and all justified in the eyes of that person making the decision. Pragmatist or not, your morals are up to you alone.

Have it your way if you insist, but I still rather not go with an approach to morals that advocates boiling babies as much as it does feeding the starving. And if someone tried to justify their baby boiling habits by telling me that their decision was based on literally nothing more than how they felt at the time, I'd want them boiled too. Why should morals be simply a matter of personal inclination?


Even in the Wiki example, it says morals are what guides if you think you should do something. Ethics define right or wrong for a given situation. Guess what, that means it's subjective to situation by definition. Hmmm.

:amused: Of course it should be subjective to situation! Although 'dependent on situation' might be a better way of wording it. Otherwise all situations would require the same response, and that's absurd. But subjective to situation is nothing like subjective to individuals. Also, given these definitions, a discussion of morals seems to be solely about people's opinions. I figured the person who started this thread wanted an actual discussion/debate into the underlying reasons behind people's gut instincts.

[KoDT69]

Have it your way if you insist *snip* I'd want them boiled too. Why should morals be simply a matter of personal inclination?

:amused: Of course it should be subjective to situation! Although 'dependent on situation' might be a better way of wording it. Otherwise all situations would require the same response, and that's absurd. But subjective to situation is nothing like subjective to individuals. Also, given these definitions, a discussion of morals seems to be solely about people's opinions. I figured the person who started this thread wanted an actual discussion/debate into the underlying reasons behind people's gut instincts.

From Wikipedia
Subjectivity - refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and the language terms use to communicate such, as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.

Either way you look at it or how you want to word it, they are basically the same thing. Situational conditions. Morals ARE completely and utterly an individual thing. Ethics apply to society as a whole. They ARE different despite the similarities. Until you figure out how to cast Dominate Person on somebody there is no way to control their individual set of morals. You refuse to believe it for some reason.

As far as your claim that all responses should be the same response? :smallconfused: What? Where do you get that from? The point of the post is to say what you would do and why you think it's the right thing to do. You're just quibbling over definitions at this point. Sure we both agree on the point of a person that could boil a baby needs boiled themselves. Even though we agree on this we may disagree morally on many other scenarios in which we both feel we have a justified right answer for. There is no way to avoid that. It doesn't matter that you don't agree it should be up to individuals but it is. That isn't going to change. Sisqui has posted recently seeming to understand that just fine.


Originally posted by Sisqui
Even highly ethical people may disagree about the morality of tossing one person out v. jumping out themselves.

Morals != Ethics

[averagejoe]

As someone else once said, "Curse you, moral relativity thread!"

To be fair, I don't think that this is quite that argument, or at least KoDT has simplified it up somewhat. But, yeah, every moral/ethics debate seems to sneak there sooner or later. Either way, whether or not morals are relative is besides the point. What this debate is supposed to be about is people saying, "this is what is right, and here's why." It doesn't matter whether everyone's morality is equally okay, you just need to make a persuasive argument about why your point of view is the correct one. I am a relativist, but I can still say, "This is the correct thing to do, and here's why." I don't have to believe in absolue morality to look at a situation and say, "This is the correct thing to do, and I have good reasons for why this is the correct thing to do."


Curse them? No. Shun and pity them? Why, indeed. :amused:

And maybe try and educate them, depending on exactly how bored you are. Its been a slow summer so far.

Truely, I am in awe of your wisdom. What with your ability to look down your nose at people.

That's the recent thread on moral relativity, not moral relativists, by the way. You definitely can't educate a thread, and I'm not sure if "them" applies to an abstract concept that's generally singular.

[Tom_Violence]

From Wikipedia
Subjectivity - refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and the language terms use to communicate such, as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.

Either way you look at it or how you want to word it, they are basically the same thing. Situational conditions. Morals ARE completely and utterly an individual thing. Ethics apply to society as a whole. They ARE different despite the similarities. Until you figure out how to cast Dominate Person on somebody there is no way to control their individual set of morals. You refuse to believe it for some reason.

As far as your claim that all responses should be the same response? :smallconfused: What? Where do you get that from? The point of the post is to say what you would do and why you think it's the right thing to do. You're just quibbling over definitions at this point. Sure we both agree on the point of a person that could boil a baby needs boiled themselves. Even though we agree on this we may disagree morally on many other scenarios in which we both feel we have a justified right answer for. There is no way to avoid that. It doesn't matter that you don't agree it should be up to individuals but it is. That isn't going to change. Sisqui has posted recently seeming to understand that just fine.



Morals != Ethics

I'm aware of the use of the term 'morals' to apply to an individual's particular code of conduct. I've been talking about 'morality', which identifies with 'ethics' as you're using it.

But that was never what this was about. This was about situations in which the end doesn't justify the means. Apparently though you were concentrating only one situations in which the end justifies the means solely for the individual concerned - i.e. a strong subjectivist position. (Although a situation has occured to me where even for the individual it might not all add up - in hindsight someone may feel regret, even immediately after having to make a tough decision someone may decide they got it wrong.) Your stance still seems confused to me. "It doesn't matter that you don't agree it should be up to individuals but it is." What is? Their own personal 'morals'? Well, I guess there's no denying that - someone's mind is their own. I just like to have the ability to disagree with someone for boiling babies, and I like to have an actual reason for doing so. I'm still very curious as to why you think there should be no way of externally justifying an ethical decision.

"As far as your claim that all responses should be the same response? What? Where do you get that from?" Early you stated: "Ethics define right or wrong for a given situation. Guess what, that means it's subjective to situation by definition.", as if this was meant to undermine a point of mine. I merely showed that in order for one to be able to react differently to different situations this would, of course, have to be the case.

I guess the bottom line is: is this a discussion about personal opinions, or a discussion about the right thing to do in a given situation? Because if its about personal opinions then if Person A says "I think we should do X", and Person B says "I think we should do Y", there's no actual disagreement there.


Truely, I am in awe of your wisdom. What with your ability to look down your nose at people.

Thank you. :smallbiggrin: It has been no small task to perfect such a skill.

[KoDT69]

Apparently though you were concentrating only one situations in which the end justifies the means solely for the individual concerned - i.e. a strong subjectivist position.

My point is that when you make a decision in your mind, you decide that there is one right answer and do what it takes to make it happen. This does verify that to you the ends justify the means. Killing someone is bad, but doing so for survival only is not necessarily bad. You can agree or disagree, but to the person that kills another for survival they mentally justified it to themselves somehow before doing so.


Your stance still seems confused to me.

Not really. You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand it.


I just like to have the ability to disagree with someone for boiling babies, and I like to have an actual reason for doing so. I'm still very curious as to why you think there should be no way of externally justifying an ethical decision.

I guess the bottom line is: is this a discussion about personal opinions, or a discussion about the right thing to do in a given situation? Because if its about personal opinions then if Person A says "I think we should do X", and Person B says "I think we should do Y", there's no actual disagreement there.

You have the right to agree or disagree with anything. You have already admitted that morals are completely up to the individual. This thread IS about your personal morals and opinions of the given scenario. The problem here is that you are trying to argue for an external justification, but that's not the point of this thread. It's about personal choice. I assume you are in college and took a philosophy class from your former statement:


This is more along the right lines. And these criteria very much do exist. The question then becomes 'which criteria are more relevant/consistent/rational etc.?' These are just some of the things that we do in moral philosophy.

It seems to me that you are trying to impose your opinion of which criteria to base it on. Taking that class doesn't make a person an expert or necessarily more educated than another on a subject, especially this kind. The fact that matters is that the ends justify the means in the eyes of the person making a decision. Your agreement or disagreement with their percetion is completely irrelevant. this thread is about each individuals moral choice and thier logic that backs it up.

[Tom_Violence]

This thread IS about your personal morals and opinions of the given scenario. The problem here is that you are trying to argue for an external justification, but that's not the point of this thread. It's about personal choice.


What would you do?

Is that the right thing to do?

What is the right thing to do?


((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))

From the starting post, this thread was intended to me about more than just simple personal morals. It appears that the initial aim was to discuss not only which choices you would make, but why you think those choices are the right ones. I understand that you believe that morals (at least. Ethics? Morality?) exist in the eye of the beholder. I was interested in why. For me, someone's morals should not only be based on their gut feelings, but also on logic and rationality.

But anyway, the end doesn't always justify the means. :tongue:

[KoDT69]

Well I missed the ethical part of the OP, so I stand corrected on that matter. :smallredface:

I agree that personal morals should also be based on your logic and rationality, but each person has different logic and rationality. That's all. I don't see any other way for any one person's morals to be anything but personal choice and perception.

When I make a decision, I do whatever necessary to make it happen. In my mind, those necessary tasks completed to reach the goal are justified in my own mind, logic, and rationality. My ends justify my means. Of course I would consider myself a Chaotic/Lawful Good Paladin of Freedom type of guy, a Crusader if you will. A lot of my family is not necessarily the same morally as I am but it's their choice. On that note, their choice and opinions do not persuade me to alter my own morals, but I'm also very hard-headed. :smallbiggrin:

[Tom_Violence]

Well I missed the ethical part of the OP, so I stand corrected on that matter. :smallredface:

I agree that personal morals should also be based on your logic and rationality, but each person has different logic and rationality. That's all. I don't see any other way for any one person's morals to be anything but personal choice and perception.

When I make a decision, I do whatever necessary to make it happen. In my mind, those necessary tasks completed to reach the goal are justified in my own mind, logic, and rationality. My ends justify my means. Of course I would consider myself a Chaotic/Lawful Good Paladin of Freedom type of guy, a Crusader if you will. A lot of my family is not necessarily the same morally as I am but it's their choice. On that note, their choice and opinions do not persuade me to alter my own morals, but I'm also very hard-headed. :smallbiggrin:

Hehe, hard-headed you say? Never would've guessed. :smallwink: Dare say I may be a touch guilty there too.

As for basing things on logic, there's no denying that everyone acts slightly different and has a slightly different view of the world. But their decisions should be based on a logic that could be explained to someone else, I think. People do think differently but Logic, like Mathematics, is hopefully something that there can be a consensus on. Even something as simple as 'torture is wrong because it causes pain and suffering' has a logic to it that (most) people can understand. I guess my problem with subjectivism for me is that nothing needs a justification, so could someone could say 'torture is fun and a good thing', and you couldn't disagree with them. You could lock them up, but on what basis? You could condemn them, but your only justification for doing that would be that your opinion is different from their's. Oddly enough it is this imposing that I've noticed alot of subjectivists hate to go near.

[KoDT69]

I guess my problem with subjectivism for me is that nothing needs a justification, so could someone could say 'torture is fun and a good thing', and you couldn't disagree with them. You could lock them up, but on what basis? You could condemn them, but your only justification for doing that would be that your opinion is different from their's. Oddly enough it is this imposing that I've noticed alot of subjectivists hate to go near.

You have the right to disagree with a looney torture freak, because I know I would not find that stuff morally right. In this case, the subjective base is the law. You can like to torture people and feel justified, but according to the government's laws, you can be locked up for it (OK Singapore may be different :smallbiggrin:).

On a semi-tangent: Why is it against the law to punish a certified lunatic with the death penalty "because they are too crazy to understand why they are being killed"???? :smallconfused: :smallconfused: :smallconfused:
Even I think that f you have a homicidal maniac, they should be expunged ASAP. Who knows how much collateral damage they could cause... Does that make me evil? I don't think so. The basis is that I know for a fact they will kill at least one inocent person and possibly more or do a lot of other vile things also.

[Sisqui]

To be fair, I don't think that this is quite that argument, or at least KoDT has simplified it up somewhat.
Oh, really?:smallwink: :


Have it your way if you insist, but I still rather not go with an approach to morals that advocates boiling babies as much as it does feeding the starving. And if someone tried to justify their baby boiling habits by telling me that their decision was based on literally nothing more than how they felt at the time, I'd want them boiled too. Why should morals be simply a matter of personal inclination?
----------------------------------------------------------------------



Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a failing of logic to me. You've gone from 'the vast majority of people would disagree' to 'it is wrong', and this is invalid.

Also, since my posts seem to be unclear or a source of debate in and of themselves, let me see if I can clarify some of what I meant:

When I say morality, I am refering to an individual's perception of what is right and wrong. As this is a perception, yes, it is entirely relative. A person can have morals that are absolutely abhorrent to those of other people. That does not make a person immoral. Only violating one of their own personal morals can make them immoral- i.e. committing an act which they believe is wrong and for which they feel guilty.

When I refer to ethics, I am refering to the system of morals an individual or a group possesses- the larger framework in which an individual moral lies such as : Killing is wrong (ethic) therefore: 1)abortion is wrong (moral) 2)the death penalty is wrong (moral). 3)mercy killing is wrong (moral). (Warning! This was just an example, not an endorsement or condemnation of this p.o.v.) I also usually am referring to this as it applies to groups or society in general. Also, since these groups are made up of individuals with relative morals and ethical systems, so too are the morals and ethics of the groups. Societies' systems of ethics are relative because, quite frankly, they are made up of nothing more than the consensus of the individuals within a group- they are opinion polls.

When I refer to Right/Wrong or Good/Evil (in caps) then I am referring to an objective morality that exists independently of human perception- one that is what it is without regard to whether or not humans agree with or acknowledge it. Most people would call this concept the will of god or some such thing.

So, to sum up, if I say a person is immoral, then I mean they have violated their own personal morals, not that they have violated someone else's. If I say they are unethical, then I mean that they either hold a view inconsistent with their larger system of morality (say, as in the above example, if they believed that the death penalty was ok. They would be holding a moral principal that violated their overall framework but one which they would not give up merely to make it fit in with that framework) or that their own individual morality or sense of personal ethics puts them in direct conflict with the ethics of the group in which they are associating (same as above only the moral was their own and the ethics in question belonged to the group).

So, the long, loooong answer to your question Tom_Violence, is that I meant the two people I called ethical made the right (lower case r) choice morally and ethically from the standpoint of both themselves as individuals and the group. The third person made the right (lower case r) moral and ethical choice because his choice did not conflict with his own sense of morality. But he was wrong (again, lowercase w) from the standpoint of ethics in the group sense because almost all humans would say that his choices were against their personal code. His actions violated the group's (presumably humanity at large) definition of what constitutes ethical behavior. As to whether any of the three individuals committed an act that was Right or Wrong (upper case) is not open to debate or interpretation. If a rigid, objective morality exists, then those actions are judged Good/Evil by that standard. Where they fell on any human's or group's relative scale of morality and ethics would be irrelevant.

I hope I have now made what I was trying to say as clear as mud :smalltongue:

[squidthingy]

From what I've seen the most popular reaction is to throw one overboard, I have also seen alot of these people say they would check to see which one is in better condition and has a better chance of survival, or that if there was a concious person on the boat there would be more of a chance to save the one person. I think that is twisting the question, I found it very simple, one will die and two will live, you have to make that choice right away with no time to check injurys or i.d's to deterine which one has a better chance or which one is more important to society, it was supposed to to based entirely on ethics and morals. I saw the question more as: "Would you knowenly kill someone to save your own life, or would you sacrifice your self to save said person", you can basically eliminate one unconcious from the analasis because either way (not includeing all 3 dying which unless someone is pure evil and would sacrifice themselves to kill 2 strangers no one would do) one unconcious person will live so it's either you or him

I've also seen alot of "kill both" or other not related post involving zombies or something, I found the latter incredably annoying considering with the the number of threads there are for non-serious stuff and other random banter(hmm), as for the former I have only seen one in which they explain why (to dramatically improve his own chance of survival and they even gave a counter answer if it didn't improve their survival) the rest are either people that would commit a murder for no reason whatsoever or they were not being serious which makes their posts nothing more than spam

[Tom_Violence]

Oh, really?:smallwink: :


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



Also, since my posts seem to be unclear or a source of debate in and of themselves, let me see if I can clarify some of what I meant:

When I say morality, I am refering to an individual's perception of what is right and wrong. As this is a perception, yes, it is entirely relative. A person can have morals that are absolutely abhorrent to those of other people. That does not make a person immoral. Only violating one of their own personal morals can make them immoral- i.e. committing an act which they believe is wrong and for which they feel guilty.

When I refer to ethics, I am refering to the system of morals an individual or a group possesses- the larger framework in which an individual moral lies such as : Killing is wrong (ethic) therefore: 1)abortion is wrong (moral) 2)the death penalty is wrong (moral). 3)mercy killing is wrong (moral). (Warning! This was just an example, not an endorsement or condemnation of this p.o.v.) I also usually am referring to this as it applies to groups or society in general. Also, since these groups are made up of individuals with relative morals and ethical systems, so too are the morals and ethics of the groups. Societies' systems of ethics are relative because, quite frankly, they are made up of nothing more than the consensus of the individuals within a group- they are opinion polls.

When I refer to Right/Wrong or Good/Evil (in caps) then I am referring to an objective morality that exists independently of human perception- one that is what it is without regard to whether or not humans agree with or acknowledge it. Most people would call this concept the will of god or some such thing.

So, to sum up, if I say a person is immoral, then I mean they have violated their own personal morals, not that they have violated someone else's. If I say they are unethical, then I mean that they either hold a view inconsistent with their larger system of morality (say, as in the above example, if they believed that the death penalty was ok. They would be holding a moral principal that violated their overall framework but one which they would not give up merely to make it fit in with that framework) or that their own individual morality or sense of personal ethics puts them in direct conflict with the ethics of the group in which they are associating (same as above only the moral was their own and the ethics in question belonged to the group).

So, the long, loooong answer to your question Tom_Violence, is that I meant the two people I called ethical made the right (lower case r) choice morally and ethically from the standpoint of both themselves as individuals and the group. The third person made the right (lower case r) moral and ethical choice because his choice did not conflict with his own sense of morality. But he was wrong (again, lowercase w) from the standpoint of ethics in the group sense because almost all humans would say that his choices were against their personal code. His actions violated the group's (presumably humanity at large) definition of what constitutes ethical behavior. As to whether any of the three individuals committed an act that was Right or Wrong (upper case) is not open to debate or interpretation. If a rigid, objective morality exists, then those actions are judged Good/Evil by that standard. Where they fell on any human's or group's relative scale of morality and ethics would be irrelevant.

I hope I have now made what I was trying to say as clear as mud :smalltongue:

I think a simple 'phew' is just about all one can say in response to that. You really should come with a legend. :smalltongue:


You have the right to disagree with a looney torture freak, because I know I would not find that stuff morally right. In this case, the subjective base is the law. You can like to torture people and feel justified, but according to the government's laws, you can be locked up for it (OK Singapore may be different :smallbiggrin:).

On a semi-tangent: Why is it against the law to punish a certified lunatic with the death penalty "because they are too crazy to understand why they are being killed"???? :smallconfused: :smallconfused: :smallconfused:
Even I think that f you have a homicidal maniac, they should be expunged ASAP. Who knows how much collateral damage they could cause... Does that make me evil? I don't think so. The basis is that I know for a fact they will kill at least one inocent person and possibly more or do a lot of other vile things also.

I think for a lot of people avoidance of the death penalty is cos of the whole Sanctity of (Human) Life dealy (which just so happens to be something that I wholeheartedly disagree with as it seems illogical and contradictory), so for some people intentionally taking a life is wrong regardless. Heh, I guess it would be one of those situations where the end would never justify the means if you held that, cos no matter how many lives you save by killing the lunatic you've still done something absolutely prohibited. I think the arguments stack up well against the SoL principle, though admittedly in this case I'm not too well versed on punishment debates. Also, I'm one of those people that is lucky to go a week without reading some horrible story that leaves me baying for blood. :smallamused:


I've also seen alot of "kill both" or other not related post involving zombies or something, I found the latter incredably annoying considering with the the number of threads there are for non-serious stuff and other random banter(hmm), as for the former I have only seen one in which they explain why (to dramatically improve his own chance of survival and they even gave a counter answer if it didn't improve their survival) the rest are either people that would commit a murder for no reason whatsoever or they were not being serious which makes their posts nothing more than spam

Agreed.

[Sisqui]

I think a simple 'phew' is just about all one can say in response to that. You really should come with a legend. :smalltongue:


I don't know if that was a compliment, but it is now! :smallwink:

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I don't need a legend, I need a warning label:

WARNING! EXCESSIVE VERBIAGE AHEAD!

:smallbiggrin:

[landadmiral]

Generally speaking of Moral Hierarchy:
self preservation > others' preservation

I'm dumping one of the unconscience bodies overboard.


...sure you can argue the Moral Hierarchy of:
self sacrifice > self preservation

but i don't see it applying in a case where there are 2 unresponsive stiffs that can't debate thier self preservation being greater than mine.

[averagejoe]

Oh, really?:smallwink:

Yes, really. :smalltongue:

I meant more in the sense that the relativist standpoint says something more along the lines of, "Yes, this is how our morals are, but there's no reason it necessarily has to be this way, it just happened to be the way we developed." Although, to be fair, I haven't been paying a lot of attention, as I have little interest in this tangent, and find it to be quite beside the point.

[Sisqui]

Yes, really. :smalltongue:

I meant more in the sense that the relativist standpoint says something more along the lines of, "Yes, this is how our morals are, but there's no reason it necessarily has to be this way, it just happened to be the way we developed."

:smallconfused:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I think the debating of the morality of boiling babies applies here... But, as you say:


Although, to be fair, I haven't been paying a lot of attention, as I have little interest in this tangent, and find it to be quite beside the point.

And yet, you post about it! So double :smalltongue: :smalltongue:
And :smallamused: to boot!

[averagejoe]

And yet, you post about it! So double :smalltongue: :smalltongue:
And :smallamused: to boot!

Well, what about your... shut up. :smallannoyed: