Mediancat

-- but I wouldn't let that cloud my judgment. I'd let them make the choice.

As for it taking the choice away from me, I would argue it doesn't; as phrased I have more than two choices. My moral choice is to let THEM make the choice.

Maybe if the question was phrased differently, I wouldn't have that option. But I do, and I'm taking it.

Rob aka Mediancat

Writer@Large

And that's exactly why it's a silly exercise. There's no real-world scenario where it's even slightly concievable.

Two thugs jump a middle-aged man in an alleyway, punch him and cut him, and demand his wallet, his watch, his ring. The middle-aged man has a gun on him; the thugs only brought knives, not expecting an armed victim. If I don't kill the man, the two thugs will die ....

--W@L

The Naked Mage

Well-spoken, Master Large!

tronvillain

I happen to think that it is trivially easy to invent situations that would coincide with this hypothetical question. Most of them are unlikely to ever be encountered, but that is not the point. I hate people who ask stupid questions rather than just answering. *chuckle*

Jamie_L

The problem with this poll is it implies a binary morality. Something is either moral or not, and all moral things are equally moral, and all immoral things are equally immoral.

The truth is, there is a spectrum, and the situation is going to play a big factor.

With that said, inaction does play into morality.

Suppose you see someone stab someone else, then that person flees the scene. There is no risk to you to call for help. You decide you're running late for a meeting, and you don't bother. Yes, I'd say that's immoral. But, not nearly as immoral as stabbing the person in the first place.

Now, suppose a guy comes into your office and starts shooting people. He has an automatic weapon. You have an opportunity to charge the guy and try to tackle him. Instead you decide to hide. More people get shot. Is that immoral? Well, given the risk and the probability that you might not succeed in helping anyone, I'd say it's not really immoral.

Suppose three people in a hospital need transplants - one a lung, one a liver, and one a heart. Suppose you know that the nurse behind the desk is a good donor match for all three. Is it immoral to not kill her so that her organs can be used to save the other three?

Clearly, the issue is ripe with gray areas. It would be an error, however, to say inaction doesn't figure into morality. In some sense, inaction is an action. It is a choice with impacts on others.

Jamie

Loren Pechtel

Originally posted by Writer@Large
I cannot concieve of a situation where those are my only two options. That's why I hate "moral quandry" questions like this--it's bifurcation fallacy, the artificial limiting of choices. I could ask,

You can either pull the trigger or not. The bad guy has a gun and a deadman triggered bomb. He's shooting at two people but someone else is walking by too close.

LHP Adept

I agree with the previous comments to the effect: This is too complex to answer with a straight binary yes/no.

Setting that aside for a moment, the real issue the original poster seems to be raising is action vs. inaction.
Essentially: "Is (standing idly by while evil happens) morally equivalent to (doing evil)?"

Let me answer this question with a resounding NO.

If, as the O.P. states, these people are
A) not my kin or friends or connected to me in any way, and
B) in danger because of a situation I did not create or contribute to creating, then
C) I have zero obligation to protect them.

Under these circumstances, if I watch silently while 2 strangers die, I am doing nothing wrong (or right). Inaction would be morally neutral. If I choose to entangle myself in the situation, THEN I become responsible for whatever changes I create.

i.e. If I kill the 1 guy to save the 2, I am both responsible for the one man's death and deserve any praise/reward associated with the saving of the other two.
If the three are all people who (as far as I know) are neither commiting terrible crimes nor doing wonderful good to the world, then saving the two at the expense of the one would seem morally positive, but I would not condemn someone for inaction.

Certain exceptions would apply to this general rule:
Someone who has accepted responsibility for the public good, such as police, firefighters, etc. has an affirmative obligation to act in the interest of members of their community. For these individuals, no-one is unconnected to them (point A above).
People who are endangered because of the malice, recklessness, or stupidity of others should be protected at the expense of those who endangered them. People who are endangered because of their own malice/recklessness/stupidity should be left to their fate.

I'd type more, but my boss wants me to get back to work.

tronvillain

*shrugs* Well, our moral intuitions differ significantly. I might even be in favour of some sort of punishment for you if you failed to kill the one to save the two. I suppose I think that you do have an obligation to protect them.

Theli

Writer@Large...

1. If you need a scenario to test my question in, then I'm not the one to provide it. I will elaborate further down in my post.
2. Are you saying that there is no situation where someone kills a person to save several people, where they don't have a calm debate before it happens. I would think a calm debate on who would die, would be quite difficult.



Jamie_L...
Now you just gave me a binary answer, thank you. Most poeple like to confuse and elaborate questions to the degree that they completely forget them. My example did not deal with a too specific hypothetical scenario. I provided just enough information to explain my question. I'm suprised you didn't ask me their names.

Now you are building a scenario again. If all moral judgements was made on a mere situation to situation basis, then there would be no actual morality to speak of. There would just be instincts. Therefore, I don't see the point in building this scenario that can only provide a skewed answer.

I never said it was an easy question, just because it's binary.



LHP Adept...
I've been wondering about this?
(A). Why are kin and friends more of a moral responsibility than strangers?
(B). Does this have something to do with assigning guilt? That, if you didn't mess the situation up, you have no reason to rectify it.

Expense? This doesn't really go that well with B. If B was true then only the malicious and stupid people should help their victims. And only the rapist himself should save his to-be-raped victim. I don't think that holds.

Writer@Large

No, I'm saying that I cannot concieve of a plausible situation like the one you've set up where (a) kill or (b) don't kill are my only options. Why couldn't I just *maim* the potential killer and save *all three* lives? Wrestle him to the ground? Knock him unconscious? Why does it have to be *kill*?

But you didn't provide enough information to make it plausible.

All moral judgements *are*, to a degree, made on a situation to situation basis. I challenge you to show me any situation where morality is clear-cut and absolute.

Because we value and protect thaose who are comfortable, familiar, or otherwise "connected" to us, because their loss would affect us more accutely then the loss of a stranger. It's a selfish but utterly human drive. On a biological level, one could also argue that protecting our kin means protecting our genetic line.

--W@L