kaelcarp

On the other hand, you can easily twist this sort of thinking into suicide-bomber mentality.

Oar

While I'm sure that that sounds attractive to believers and new converts, for the rest of us it's just a little scary. People who are totally convinced of the rightness of their actions are generally the ones that you really have to watch out for.

Furthermore, I'd rather keep the guilt. It serves the purpose of making people hesitant to perform such extreme actions again, lowering the chances of acting too hastily.

Tom Sawyer

I have to agree with this, except that I'd change the phrase "a little scary" to downright terrifying and disgusting.

jonesg, you do know that this is the exact same argument that Al'Quaida uses, right? Allah gives them the moral foundation to strike against the infidels, so that they can kill innocents without any guilt about it.

It's a really, really despicable attitude.

fast

Murder is immoral and cannot be justified. There is such a thing as justified killing but not justified murder.

If the act (um, the failure to act) in a manner consistent with the saving of another happens to ACTUALLY equate to your own forthcoming death sentence, then I fail to see how you ever had a moral obligation to save that one that would most assuredly kill you.

swamp

Sorry, that was my sloppy use of "murder" causing confusion there.

This is closer to the question from the OP; are you saying that when a person tries to kill you, it follows that you have no moral obligation to them at all? This is the idea that makes me curious.

jonesg

What you're really asking is about the commandment "thou shall not kill"

Does it mean murder or kill under any circumstance.
Common sense says it refers to murder.

Intellect ties itself in knots and arrives at the same conclusion after taking the scenic route all over the map.

God given common sense is the tool which picks the intellectual lock of human affairs.

Yahzi

You do what you have to do.

If you can pull the criminal to safety, and know that he will be committed to a mental hospital that will fix what is wrong with him, then letting him die would be an immoral act.

If you know that pulling the criminal to safety will result in vast harm to yourself and others, then letting him live would be an immoral act.

The two extremes are obvious; where you draw the line in the middle is a matter of judgement, depending on many factors and nuances; which is why human moral judgemant cannot be replaced by computers or law books.

fast

There are those that would contend that acting in the morally right manner is what one ought to do regardless of presented circumstances, and as such, they are generally the ones held in the highest esteem from a moral perspective.

I am not of that moral quality, for I have not been able to achieve nor currently desire to live that kind of life. Instead, I prefer to act in a morally right manner dependent on presented circumstances, and as such, I may be inclined to act in such a way less ideal than those above me.

My supposed obligation is to both 'help' and 'not harm'. I say "supposed" because I cannot for the life of me find that 'connection' that LOGICALLY DEMANDS I even have an obligation; moreover, I struggle with the term "obligation" because I despise it so; however, my desire to do that which is right focuses me to acquiesce to thus adhere to such purported obligations.

In the case presented in the original post, let me readdress it now.

Now, you said, "my initial moral impulse is: I cannot let him go", and my comment to that is: your impulse is representative of someone with a high moral quality. Earlier, I said, we ought to help and not harm. Grabbing the arm is consistent with both: 1) helping by not allowing further harm to come and 2) not harming or allowing further harm to come.

You also said, “I would no doubt suppress this impulse and do it anyway�?. I might do that as well, so does that then mean we are of a lesser moral quality? That’s a tough question, so let’s look at the reason we chose such a path. You said, “he intends to continue screwing Hero over after Hero saves him, only worse�?. Could it be that our families will have a higher probability of dieing at his hands? Are we now forced to weigh our obligations to others, yet without somehow elevating ourselves up to the level of jury and executioner, or must we take responsibility and do what must be done for the safety and security of those that deserve our moral behavior as well?

A choice has to made and we don’t have the luxury of time in our perilous plight, so do we choose wrong number one or wrong number two, with one being the obvious not helping and with two being the allowing of the bad guy to most assuredly exact harm upon another. It is this very fact that I see choices we make as an integral part of morality that I can justify not taking the high road. The apparent morally elite as described at the beginning of this post choose not to consider the repercussions of their non action, and it is that that allows for the subsequent harm that could most assuredly follow--assuredly being a requirement.

You said, “I do not believe in eye for an eye "morality". Neither do I. Well, sometimes I feel like it, but I don‘t necessarily believe in it. It would not be an eye for an eye morality to let the villain drop. It will be peace of mind in knowing that you did what was necessary to fulfill the greater balance of your moral obligation to others -- assuming of course your assurances, as vaguely mentioned earlier, are true and plausible. In other words, it will be wrong to allow your villain to drop if you do not have good faith he will harm immediately post rescue. I say immediately, but really I mean that there must be a time for probable successful intervention.

Yes, it does feel wrong. There’s two ways to approach this.

1) it is wrong, but it’s a lesser of two wrongs.
2) It’s not wrong due to the weighting average--meaning.

Either way, the net effect is the same. You ought to choose the ‘better’ path, which will depend solely on your assurances of the outcome. Example, if you most reasonably certainly or if others will most reasonably certainly suffer great irreprehensible harm, then it is either number 1 or number 2 above, which really has no difference between them other than semantics. I’d prefer to use number two and say it’s not wrong--less confusion.

Secure huh? Looks like you saved the toughest for last.

Let’s change the scenario slightly for this one. Let’s say you are not certain who would prevail the ordeal if you pulled up the 250 pound muscular villain with a loaded gun in his pocket determined to end your life and others when after you save him. Let’s say that you think you MAY actually have a fighting chance. Oh, let’s say to judge it to be about 40to 60 in your favor. This isn’t as easy as it looks.

What if it was 10 to 90? I can hear the judge now, “you dropped a 14 year old off the cliff because of the slight chance in his drunken stooper he may actually kill you with his pocket knife?�?

It’s tough when the decisions have horrid repercussions. I’ll pull the 14 year old up, for sure, not because of age necessarily but because I feel I can minimize the wrong he can bestow upon me and others. The other crazy however, well, he may be able hurt and kill more than I can do anything about, and I must take it upon myself to do the responsible thing and become judge and jury--good night.

jonesg

Simple, even for you.

1, accepting ones imperfection, it might mean an act of anger is carried out, asking forgiveness is futile unless the wrong is realised and the act rejected, there must be regret for ones act.

2. thats playing God again, far more dangerous than #1.
The commandments are from God, not humans.
Number 2 is malice aforthought.

Thats why there are degrees of murder.

#1 , you come home and your wife is bagging the mailman, you throw him out the window in fury, he dies.

#2, you uncover her affair and hatch a plot to kill, plans are made and carried out and you cover your trail.

It all has to do with intent. You may not have actually wanted the mailman to die, although the fact that you tossed him out the window on the 33rd floor might be a stretch. Most juries would sympathize.