Ensign Steve

Well, she had me convinced, so I'll give her a pass. Reminded me a whole lot of my fellow students in my ethics class. Ahhhh, the joys of junior college.

I agree! It would have been far more interesting if the question had been the old "one unwilling organ donor for 5 dying people" dilemma. Ah, but what if the organ donor was a convicted felon, and the 5 dying people were a week away from finding the cure for cancer? Still improbable, but at least possible and somewhat thought-provoking. As the question stands now, it really does sound like that dude who supposedly died on the cross to save the world.

But since I didn't bother to offer up a more interesting question, I won't hang up the original guy who at least made an effort.

Jen

red robot

I agree with this. Using the "Golden Rule" as the basis for my morality, killing the man is the moral thing to do.

I would be willing to die to save humanity, therefore others should be willing to do the same.

rr

Mageth

IMO, we're faced with two opposing moral questions; the morality of killing the subject and thus saving humankind, and the morality of killing humankind by not killing the subject.

The fact that the subject would die anyway is the overcoming factor, IMO. It's not right for the subject to have to die in such a scenario, but it's the correct moral choice in such a scenario to sacrifice the one for the many.

To make the question a little bit harder, suppose instead of a man or a woman, we're talking about a six-year-old child.

And even harder, imagine that it's your child.

If it was my child, I'd die first, when they came to kill him or her.

Wiploc

LOL:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy

anonymousj

JenniferD, wiploc,

My request was
Are you going to answer my request? Tenpudo, you can play, too!

anonymousj

Ensign Steve

J:

I think red robot has done the best job so far, using the Golden Rule. You want another one? Here goes:


1: The death of the man in question would result in more happiness in the world than if the entire human race were wiped out.
2: People should always act in such a way that the result will be the most happiness possible (a basic moral principle of Utilitarian ethics).
C: It is morally permissible (actually required) to kill the man in question.

Jen

tronvillain

I consider killing the person to be the "moral" decision for the simple reason that the death of six billions people bother me more than the death of one person. For someone to feel any other way seems like madness, and whether or not the person is going to die anyway makes little or no difference to me.

The difference between the world and an individual remains so huge that those changes make no difference to my answer at all.

Ensign Steve

I saw a lady on M*A*S*H smother her baby just to save a busload of people. I imagine a lot people would be willing to do it for the sake of the entire human race. Yes, it is fiction, but it was still a very sad episode. I think I was too young when I watched it.

Wiploc

Suppose I say this:

1. You are responsible for the foreseeable results of your choices.

2. Death is bad.

If you accept these rules, then your hypothetical situation is one in which you can choose the death of one person or the death of six billion people. It's your choice. Morally speaking, the one guy should die rather than the six billion, and it makes no difference whether he dies naturally or you take him apart with a chainsaw.

Now I don't think this is a compelling argument. It's just a rule (okay, two rules) and a consequence of the rule. That's what you had, a rule and a consequence. I don't see my system as any more or less persuasive than yours. But you flaunted your rightness. You taunted and challenged us. You said your way is better than any other moral system. But now when you are asked to back up your boast, you pretend not to have any idea of how to defend your system over other systems. That's frustrating. I wonder, did you change your mind about the defensibility of your system, or did you know that your boasting was empty bluster at the time you did it?
crc

viscousmemories

[rant]Ah, fair enough. A very good point. You would not characterize me as a liar for having told a few fibs in my lifetime. A relief to be sure, for as you implied to us in your first post in this thread, you are the Moral Authority. Therefore, in the name of anonymousj, let it be decreed that one who tells only the amount of lies that viscousmemories has in his lifetime told and NO MORE, shall be henceforth and forever more referred to as other than a liar. By the same token, all who tell just one more lie than has been given forth by Mr. Memories, shall be now and for all time called a liar.

Thanks for clearing that up dude. You rock.

Now, let us review yet again what you said in your first post, shall we? I fear you may have forgotten it in the midst of all the other sewage you've regurgitated since.[/rant]
[rant]Right. And what a welcome relief that you have promised to discontinue participation in this silliness. I am afraid to ponder what nonsense might come next from a Moral Authority who has, through the breadth of his experience and wisdom on issues of morality, concluded that it is "morally wrong" to kill the "average law-abiding citizens in the United States" to save humanity. How ever are we to approach this problem if the hypothetical person is neither "average", nor "law-abiding", nor a citizen of the United States?

Please sir, while you are dispensing with your Solemn Judgements on all things moral, allow us the benefit of your wisdom in defining and describing the characteristics of an "average", "law-abiding" citizen, that we might spare the righteous in our desperate hour.[/rant]

Edited to add "rant" tags, but still unwilling to withdraw comments.