The Question.

alright, this is what was given to us toward the end of the semester to discuss. its pretty sad though. also, its true. none of it is fiction.

alright, during WW2, the Nazis took over a small village in Poland with about 200 people. i dont know if thats "small", but whatever. After the village over, the commander of the army took 3 people hostage and called a "meeting" of some sorts with the army, the head of the village, the rest of the village, and the hostages. The commander lined the 3 up against a wall and handed the head of the village a rifle. this is what he said. (this is not a quote, but just a summary). "you either kill those 3 people with this rifle, or we kill the whole entire village including you". well, after a while he decided to kill the 3. he pointed the gun and fired, but nothing came out. the rifle was jammed or out of ammo, i forgot which. so the commander took the rifle, turned it around and said, "beat them to death". he couldnt do it. he watched his whole village burn. along with the inhabitants. later on in the story it says that one or two, again, i forgot which, of the people, were actually family of his. now the question is, of course, what would you do? This is the reason why i could never be head of anything, like the Prez or Dictator of any country. putting a value on existance is something i could never do.

the 2nd sentence is supposed to start with "after the army took the village over..." sorry.

I really can't answer that question. Reason one is because, well, I've never been put in that type of a situation. Secondly, my first reaction would have been to shoot the leader and at least two of his top aides. Shit, if you're going to kill us anyway, might as well go down without you.

Shit, i just typed like a ton of post and lost it...

anyway...

Our history teacher had a similar question about the japanese when they invaded manchuria, they take a father and son, and give them 3 options:

1. Shoot your son, and you may live.

2. Shoot yourself, but know that your son would be tortured until death.

3. Shoot any officer in the village, but know that you both would die.

He was cool, always getting to the nitty gritty fundamentals of stuff with questions like that. Anyway, i had to pick the DVSNCYNIKL route, kill the highest ranking mofo there, and go down fighting.

Classic question. :)

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

I dont believe that is true. What army commander of any group would hand over a loaded weapon to someone and say - kill them. Thats plain moronic. Clearly the choices were not that limited. He could turn the gun on himself (dumb) or turn and shoot and miss the hostages. He could shoot the commander. The choices are not fixed if that were a "real" situation.

Hey Yogs, were you replying to my post? coz i included pretty much every option. The officers that handed over the gun were like, general grunts that were ordered to, and the people were threatened with some pretty graphic stuff....oh well, its just supposed to be for the hypothetical sense anyway, even though it was my understanding that they were real events. Did ya know the japanese buried the manchurians up to there necks and ran around crushing their heads with tanks...sick

Oh, btw, whats your avatar supposed to be? I dunno, it may just be me but the pic looks familiar, probably not, just interested

Fritz, you follow utilitaranism?? (sorry if spelt that wrong). thats interesting. i know the rule about that, it weights life depending on the amount of people involved. you said it all already, so theres no need to add on. however, i think humanists would simply not answer the question. killing to a humanist is like abortion to a priest. thats something else we should discuss later. now THAT would be cool.

and yogs, that did happen. these people were basically taught to torture, by any means necessary. and making fun of, or randomly shooting someone for the fun of it were all a part of the "game" they played.

personally, i think im a humanist. i could never, as i said before, weigh the life of a human by any means. its just something i cant fathom.

I'd have to agree with dvs, if they gave you a gun, try and take out as many of "them" as possible

Originally posted by fritz_269
Classic question. :)

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

Kinda like what Spock said, "The needs of the many, outweigh the needs of the few, or the one."

Originally posted by fritz_269
Classic question. :)

I have to say that I generally follow the philosophy of rule utilitarianism (formulated by John Stuart Mill). I'd probably kill the three (who knows what I'd really do in the emotional throws of the situation, but sitting safely here at my keyboard, I would.) If I truly believed the officer, either that he would kill everyone and that he would let us go if I did my killing, then to allow the murder of hundreds is a far greater ethical wrong than the murder of three by my own hand.

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

But this only works well in a teleological sense, where we can know the outcome of our actions to a certainty. If there was some question about the honesty of the officer, then the rule breaks down a bit; and we have nothing but our gut instinct about the officers honesty to base our decision on.

Although, in this very particular case, almost every forseeable outcome is the murder of everyone - if the officer is lying, then you and everyone die anyway, so there is a limited downside to believing him.

I think that William James (pragmatism), Descarte & Spinoza(rationalism), Kierkegaard & Nietzsche (nihilism), and Rand (objectivism) would probably all agree with me (and Mills).

I think that Kant (kantianism), Rawls (liberalism), and Hobbes (natural law) would all disagree with me on this though. The question really does go to the deepest recesses of personal philosophy.

I'm not really sure where Humanism or Existentialism would stand on this?
:smoker2:

Let's dwell on this, shall we.

I admire your references to the "isms" and all. But let's talk now realistically. Let's talk about real life now. I know this is only a hypothetical situation and God forbid anyone on this forum or the world(although it's happened) ever get put in this situation.

Human behavior is such that deep down inside we are motivated by Emotion. Thus, emotion in every sense of the word dictates our motives. The reason I say this is because you also have to factor in for example, what if the 3 people chosen to be executed were for example, someone you disliked. Then maybe the person would be more susceptible to kill them based on his dislike for the person.

I based my answer on what my behavior dictates I do. To put it blunt, I look out for me. Now, if the people on that line were let's say my mother, father and brother. My love, loyalty, Gratitude for my family is above anyone else. Therefore, I know I am going to die because I won't kill them, no matter how many other people die because of it. It may sound like a foolish answer, but I believe in controlling my outcomes. That means, that as soon as that gun was put in my hand, the closest people next to me and their leader will get it.

Through time, Human beings have been emotional in everything they undertake. When they achieve success, they involve all those that they love. When faced with tragedy, we all get together and mourn or support one another. It's like no matter how "Gung-Ho" you are, you rely on emotion to a degree. Now not to say that there aren't some emotionless people out there, just that not having emotion is an emotion if you think about it. You are refusing to feel. That in itself, is denial.

So when basing a decision on possible outcomes and factoring in the honesty of the officer, you really rely on what you feel rather than what is good or best. I mean, yeah, you could kill those three and the village will live. But then what are you gonna do when the officer yells, "Destroy the village anyway!" and you're left there to watch and know that You killed the people you love and your efforts were unfruitful.

Originally posted by fritz_269

The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."

I know these aren't your words. But looking at them, don't you believe that by today's standards, like many things, they are outdated?

I don't believe that there is one thing today that this idea could be applied. If you get down to the guts of this idea, it's almost presumptous in insinuating that you already know and calculated the outcome. Cause as we all know, nothing ever goes according to plan.:)


It's good to know what we can "Ideally" do in any situation. But to be as resolute in replying can only be "unpractical" at best.

Originally posted by NismoDrifts
Hey Yogs, were you replying to my post? coz i included pretty much every option. The officers that handed over the gun were like, general grunts that were ordered to, and the people were threatened with some pretty graphic stuff....oh well, its just supposed to be for the hypothetical sense anyway, even though it was my understanding that they were real events. Did ya know the japanese buried the manchurians up to there necks and ran around crushing their heads with tanks...sick

Oh, btw, whats your avatar supposed to be? I dunno, it may just be me but the pic looks familiar, probably not, just interested

The pic is ripped from a cartoon that I saw some time ago.

Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
The basic tenet behind Mill's rule utilitarinism is:
"An action is right to the extent that it inclines to promote the greatest good for the greatest number."
I know these aren't your words. But looking at them, don't you believe that by today's standards, like many things, they are outdated?

I don't believe that there is one thing today that this idea could be applied. If you get down to the guts of this idea, it's almost presumptous in insinuating that you already know and calculated the outcome. Cause as we all know, nothing ever goes according to plan.:)
Some random thoughts in reply:

I don't find the quote dated at all. Can you explain why you feel it is?

You make a strong point that humans are entirely motivated by their emotions, but you fail to provide any method whatsoever by which we can judge the morality of our actions. If your actions are purely ruled by emotion, what makes your morality any different from a lower animal's? At least as individuals, if not as societies, we must find a rational, objective way of judging morality - I believe that this is even a part of human nature. I personally have emotions, but I also strive to follow a moral path that is chosen rationally, and I think I would do that even if I had never read a philosophy book in my life.

Not everyone has to precisely name their philosophy, but I'm pretty sure that everone has one, whether they know it or not. And it's probably a pretty close match to one of the common philosophies espoused by one of the many "isms" coined in the last 3000 years. When you study philosophy for the first time, you generally don't get converted to some new moral code; you find a philosophy that already nearly matches your own, internal, un-named philosophy. Suddenly you exclaim, "Wow, I'm a utilitarian!". You always were, you just didn't have a name for it.

DVSNCYNIKL, from your post, I think you might find Kant fairly interesting.

You are absolutely right in that Mill's utilitarinism is teleological - it only works perfectly when the goal and process are perfectly defined. Which, as you rightly point out, never happens in real life. This, in my view, is where emotions come into play. If I have an objective goal, but a subjective world, I navigate with emotions. Simply, I just take my best guess. But this is a far cry from being ruled by emotions; my philosophy helps me identify goals and processes, and my emotions help me decide/guess which ones I have the greatest chance of sucess with. My emotions help me use my philosophy, they do not take the place of it.

The question above (true story or not, doesn't matter) is a moral conundrum - it's purpose is to point out the differences in philosophies. It's quite instructive to explore your emotions and philosophies by trying to place yourself in extrordinary circumstances. Although "I don't know" is absolutely correct, but it's solipsistic and a rather useless answer. The point of the exercise is to think about the situation.

Personally, I find the answer of "shoot the leader" very objectionable. Doing so would be virtually guaranteeing the death of yourself, the three people and the entire village, not to mention the leader. In my personal view, this is probably the worst action one could take as it almost certainly results in the most harm for the most people. Now, I understand that you were trying to be honest and I very much appreciate that - I'm not trying to put anyone down or force my morality upon you (I'm a big proponent of relativism on the Internet ;) ) I just wanted to express my view of that action.
:smoker2:

So, in a nutshell, the three people are fucked?

Originally posted by 1989 DX R
So, in a nutshell, the three people are fucked?

If the head of the village was a untilatrian then yes.



The story is most often used as on abjection to consequentialist moral theorys, which would almost all say that killing the 3 people to save the rest of the village is the right thing to do, which is of course murder.
Its one the simplest, and also one the strongest as it appeals to our own intuitions about what murder is, and out generaly held beliefs that murder is wrong.
So the problem goes like this, The utilitarian says the head of the village should kill the 3 innocent villages so that the rest of the village maybe saved, however this goes against our intuition that murder as wrong, and so it seems wrong that he should kill the 3 villagers. This must mean that Utilitarianism is wrong.

Of course the Utilitarian can just turn around and say well no, its your intuitions that are wrong, at which point the objection simply falls apart.
(this is known as the "So what" reply, and Ill be damned if I can remember who thought it up)

Isnt this one of those lesser of three evils type posts, where there is no easy way out, and in the end someone is dead anyway? I think it would be a lot better if people would concentrate on the important things in life like turbos and cam grinds and not pointless infinetly discussiable(sp?) topics like this. Basically, in this situation, you would rather be a Nazi.

Originally posted by fritz_269
I personally have emotions, but I also strive to follow a moral path that is chosen rationally, and I think I would do that even if I had never read a philosophy book in my life.

Not on topic, but I just have to say that I find that a rather nieve understanding of some of the less educated members of our society, there are many people out there, who I am sure have never had a rational thought in thier lives. (but then im a cynical bastard when it come to my views on the rest of society) Of course if you meaning had you been educated but never read any philosophy then I have to agree with you.


DVSNCYNIKL, from your post, I think you might find Kant fairly interesting.

or any of the other Humanistic philosophers, in fact you might want to look at some of the more radical eastern religions, go dig up that thread at the start of this forum where Texan has a good discusion on his beliefs.

it only works perfectly when the goal and process are perfectly defined. Which, as you rightly point out, never happens in real life.

I would like to disagree with that, A political decision can be a moral one, and often require no emotinal input, and can have all of the facts at hand.

This, in my view, is where emotions come into play. If I have an objective goal, but a subjective world, I navigate with emotions. Simply, I just take my best guess. But this is a far cry from being ruled by emotions; my philosophy helps me identify goals and processes, and my emotions help me decide/guess which ones I have the greatest chance of sucess with. My emotions help me use my philosophy, they do not take the place of it.

But I though you were a utilitarian? I understand what you say about using emotions as a tool, I do the same thing, but dosn't it conflict with the inhiernt rationality and logical reasoning behind untilitarian thought?

Originally posted by 1989 DX R
So, in a nutshell, the three people are fucked?
If the head of the village was a untilatrian then yes.
Actually, the three people are fucked no matter what. Every foreseeable outcome to any action (or inaction) on your part is that they are murdered. The only question is by whom!


I personally have emotions, but I also strive to follow a moral path that is chosen rationally, and I think I would do that even if I had never read a philosophy book in my life.

Not on topic, but I just have to say that I find that a rather nieve understanding of some of the less educated members of our society, there are many people out there, who I am sure have never had a rational thought in thier lives. (but then im a cynical bastard when it come to my views on the rest of society) Of course if you meaning had you been educated but never read any philosophy then I have to agree with you. Nope. I honestly meant that as nearly an universal. Perhaps it is naive, but it does seem to me like even the most worthless, horrible people I've ever had the misfortune to meet still seem to have some sort of moral code. Perhaps it's twisted and strange, but they do have a sense of right and wrong that comes from a rational (at least rational within their own minds) examination of their actions. And there is a natural force in human nature to eliminate inconsistency in thoughts and actions (which makes strong sense in a Darwinian perspective) - psychologists call it "cognitive dissonance", and we are highly motivated to eliminate it. Thus I believe that humans generally do act according to an internal, rational moral code; even if they can't express it explicitly or even know what it entails.
it only works perfectly when the goal and process are perfectly defined. Which, as you rightly point out, never happens in real life.

I would like to disagree with that, A political decision can be a moral one, and often require no emotinal input, and can have all of the facts at hand. Well, there is a very fine point to argue there which basically goes towards the nature of knowledge (can we truly know the outcome) but I'm willing to stipulate and revise to "rarely happens in real life". :)

This, in my view, is where emotions come into play. If I have an objective goal, but a subjective world, I navigate with emotions. Simply, I just take my best guess. But this is a far cry from being ruled by emotions; my philosophy helps me identify goals and processes, and my emotions help me decide/guess which ones I have the greatest chance of sucess with. My emotions help me use my philosophy, they do not take the place of it.

But I though you were a utilitarian? I understand what you say about using emotions as a tool, I do the same thing, but dosn't it conflict with the inhiernt rationality and logical reasoning behind untilitarian thought?
Here's where you nail me; and rightly so, you bastard. :)
To a true, letter of the law utilitarian, there should be no emotion involved whatsoever. My personal argument would proceed along the lines that intuition is of use to the rational mind. Intuition (as well as creativity) are not strictly rational processes, but can be of great use. The rational mind realizes those uses and can harness them for greater effectiveness in reaching it's rationally defined goal. Here's where it turns out that I'm not actually so much a Mill Utilitarian as much as I am a James Pragmatist. Hah! :) Given all the tools available to me, I am quite willing to use them to best effect, and that includes my emotions and intuition. But I still find Mill's tenet of "the most good for the most people" to be a guiding moral principle.

Just out of curiosity - how would you answer the question Moppie?

This is getting good!:hehe:

But I am going to disagree with you again Fritz, no hard feelings.:D


I think there is a something being mistaken(can't think of a better word). I don't see it so much as a moral issue, rather a reasoning issue. I say reason because as it stands, Human Beings are able to and only do this to date. So that whole lower creatures thing should not apply. The situation painted here is you have to make a choice. Thus the shooting of the leader scenario, is in fact or may be a righteous one. It will give you the "satisfaction" of knowing the outcome. You see, by shooting the leader, I know that regardless of this action, everyone is dead. However, there is a slight possibility that without their leader, the village will be saved.

Again, no one answer is correct. Because, what it basically boils down to is, What is right in your eyes. Not so much what is good for everything else. When someone goes out and does something extraordinary, they are looked upon as heroes. Held to the highest regard for taking that extra step.

I think you see where I'm going with this. Morality, that is at least in my book, not emotional. More like an ethics thing of what you think is right and wrong. The choice here is, what do you do to save everyone. If you were to think of it in a moral sense, either choice that you decide would be wrong, as Moppie graciously pointed out. Murder is unacceptable in almost everyones eyes. I say almost because there some who do not believe in civilization and society.

So where do you go from here?

Ok, Fritz Ill deal to you first, DVS you next. :D

Originally posted by fritz_269

Actually, the three people are fucked no matter what. Every foreseeable outcome to any action (or inaction) on your part is that they are murdered. The only question is by whom!
Very good point, as a result of what you've just said, and what DVS said im going to restate the examable to make it a little clearer for everybody. :)

Nope. I honestly meant that as nearly an universal. Perhaps it is naive, but it does seem to me like even the most worthless, horrible people I've ever had the misfortune to meet still seem to have some sort of moral code. ........................Thus I believe that humans generally do act according to an internal, rational moral code; even if they can't express it explicitly or even know what it entails.

want to start a new thread? This could make for an interesting discusion. And I like what you did with rationality, its a good trick.


But I still find Mill's tenet of "the most good for the most people" to be a guiding moral principle.
Its not strictly Mills Tenet, in fact it's history can be traced back much further to the ancient Greeks (and possibly beyond), I think that you might have simply assciated it with Mill only, but what about those before him like Benthem? :) or even Thomas Aquinas used it at some point. Its a basic tenet of most Consequential Moral theory and should not be acreadited to Mill alone. As a guiding princable I find it is only ever been efectivly used by Isac Asimov, (if you dont know what im refering to here, then you should be strung up on a car assembly line and dismembered by car assemblers. ;) )

Just out of curiosity - how would you answer the question Moppie?

I wouldn't. To me its a Tragic Delima, as no matter what happens there is a loss of life. (Ill explain why in anthoer Topic on "what do you consider the most valuable". I dont want this thread going off in to many directions at once, it can make things hard to follow :cool: )

Drift next!??!!!??!?!!? *ducks and covers*

Hmm i guess another option would be to take the bastard traitor yellow bellied cowardly no guts/balls way out, go on a killing rampage of all of your fellow villagers, and maybe, just maybe theyll let you live for giving them a good laugh.............ok........so......i guess there is no safe way out :rolleyes:

anyway, if you mean drift as in me, come and get me, im ready :devil:

:D

Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
This is getting good!:hehe:

Just you wait mate, it will get better!


Again, no one answer is correct. Because, what it basically boils down to is, What is right in your eyes. Not so much what is good for everything else. When someone goes out and does something extraordinary, they are looked upon as heroes. Held to the highest regard for taking that extra step.

If we live Morality up to the individual then what do we do with case's like that of Hitler? Everything he did he considered Moral, and the Right thing to do. And not all Heroic acts are Moral acts, I would not call sending ten men to rescue 1 and having 9 of the ten killed a moral act, but it is generaly considered a heroic act.
What your starting to advocte is Moral subjectivism, and that my friend is whole pile of crap you really dont want to fall into.

If you were to think of it in a moral sense, either choice that you decide would be wrong, as Moppie graciously pointed out. Murder is unacceptable in almost everyones eyes. I say almost because there some who do not believe in civilization and society.


And that is point of the example, to try and show that Utilitariansim is wrong by apealling to our own intuitions about what is right and wrong.
The problem with this is that we dont know if out intuitions are right, after all mens intuition used to tell us that women should not have the vote, but this has changed and did so over a very short period of time.
And the same is true with our atitudes to people from other races, our intuitions and our own subjective moral judgements can be wrong. Hence we need a singlel universal moral code to live by, that will allow us all to make the right decsions, and not have any moral conflicts about what the right action would be.


Now I would just like to restate the example.

DVS is taken Hostage by Fritz and gang of heavily armed and well trained Consequentialist hell bent on having thier methods adopted as law. They take DVS to a room filled with 3 inocent people that he knows and tell him that he must kill all 3 people or a large nuclear bomb will be set of in Los Angels. This will happen, the bomb is real, and Fritz does have the trigger. If DVS shoots him self the bomb will be detonated and the 3 people also killed, and if DVS tries to do anything like escape or shoot his capters he will be killed along with the 3 people in the room, and the bomb will be detonated. (DVS is given a working gun, and put under constant guard from behind, if he moves the wrong way he will be shoot)
Basicly DVS is given ONLY TWO CHOICES, Kill the 3 innocent people in the room who he knows, and the Nuclear bomb will be disarmed. Or he can not Kill the 3 people in the room and the bomb will be detonated killing Millions of innocent people.

Originally posted by NismoDrifts

anyway, if you mean drift as in me, come and get me, im ready



Sorry dude, not you. Theres another Drift in the Honda Forum who has a very similar writing style and sense of humor to that of DVS, my slightly miss wired brain just got a little jumbled. :bloated: :bloated:

But if you want me to take your innocent little mind apart Ill happly try and arange something. :devil:

Darn, no easy go down fighting way out right now.........well..........let em live DVS! i dont live near LA!!!!! Actually, i dont know what i would do in that situation, i guess i would have to keep all those people from dying, i dunno,

:D Didnt the british prime minister in WW2 go through that situation when they finally decyphered the germans codes? like, he had the choice to save a town from being invaded (i THINK it had people he knew in it), and maybe lose the war. Or he lets the town die, and wins the war.....same idea

Ok, Fritz Ill deal to you first, drift you next. <--thats what my comp says.....errrrrr......simple mistake, not flamin ya for it or anything

Aight got ya, sorry, my last post was made before seeing your latest, so ignore it :D

Originally posted by Moppie


And that is point of the example, to try and show that Utilitariansim is wrong by apealling to our own intuitions about what is right and wrong.
The problem with this is that we dont know if out intuitions are right, after all mens intuition used to tell us that women should not have the vote, but this has changed and did so over a very short period of time.
And the same is true with our atitudes to people from other races, our intuitions and our own subjective moral judgements can be wrong. Hence we need a singlel universal moral code to live by, that will allow us all to make the right decsions, and not have any moral conflicts about what the right action would be.


Now I would just like to restate the example.

DVS is taken Hostage by Fritz and gang of heavily armed and well trained Consequentialist hell bent on having thier methods adopted as law. They take DVS to a room filled with 3 inocent people that he knows and tell him that he must kill all 3 people or a large nuclear bomb will be set of in Los Angels. This will happen, the bomb is real, and Fritz does have the trigger. If DVS shoots him self the bomb will be detonated and the 3 people also killed, and if DVS tries to do anything like escape or shoot his capters he will be killed along with the 3 people in the room, and the bomb will be detonated. (DVS is given a working gun, and put under constant guard from behind, if he moves the wrong way he will be shoot)
Basicly DVS is given ONLY TWO CHOICES, Kill the 3 innocent people in the room who he knows, and the Nuclear bomb will be disarmed. Or he can not Kill the 3 people in the room and the bomb will be detonated killing Millions of innocent people.

It seems to me that the moral dilemma isn't on DVS at this point. Its one the people who somehow went to all the time, money and effort to put him in the situation. They reasoned out that DVS decision of who lives and dies is paramount to their continued existence. Clearly these are not rational people and cannot be trusted to deactivate the bomb regardless of the choice he makes. Therefore if I were DVS (and I'm not) I would shoot the three people in such a way that they could survive and then do what I can to kill the people who put me in this bizarre, impossible and ridicules scenario.

Umm Moppie, dude, you got the wrong person. I wasn't the one that said it was a moral issue, Fritz was.:D

Dang, I'm falling behind. Fun thread. :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
But I am going to disagree with you again Fritz, no hard feelings.:D
Of course not! :D No hard feelings from my end either please! :devil:

Some responses:

I think there is a something being mistaken(can't think of a better word). I don't see it so much as a moral issue, rather a reasoning issue...
You confuse me right off the bat here - In an earlier post you stated, "Human behavior is such that deep down inside we are motivated by Emotion. Thus, emotion in every sense of the word dictates our motives.... you really rely on what you feel rather than what is good or best..." so I'm honestly a bit unclear on where you stand. It seems to me that you may be implying that you find morality to be a totally subjective, emotional and irrational idea? Is that right?

Thus the shooting of the leader scenario, is in fact or may be a righteous one. It will give you the "satisfaction" of knowing the outcome.
This seems wrong to me. Argument by reductio ad absurdum: It is moral for me to go murder anyone I want and then commit suicide because I will have the satisfaction of knowing the outcome. Bah! ;)

Again, no one answer is correct. Because, what it basically boils down to is, What is right in your eyes.
What Moppie said... This is relativistic and deconstructionist. Do you honestly, deep down, believe that everyone's actions are moral, as long as they are "right" in their own mind? To me, that's a pretty scary thought. Obviously, we're talking about a somewhat absurd circumstance here, but the point of the exercise is to help us determine what objective standard of moral code will work. It's not supposed to be a paradox or a puzzle with null or multiple answers.

If you were to think of it in a moral sense, either choice that you decide would be wrong, as Moppie graciously pointed out.
Moppie, did you say that? Perhaps you should explain what you mean by a "Tragic Dillema", and why you seem to think it is of no use in philosophy. (Or why I shouldn't just rail on you for copping out of the question! ;) )

I think perhaps we need to start a new thread to try and accurately define the words "Morals" and "Ethics".
:smoker2:

Morals from Webster's

1 a : of or relating to principles of right and wrong in behavior : ETHICAL <moral judgments> b : expressing or teaching a conception of right behavior <a moral poem> c : conforming to a standard of right behavior d : sanctioned by or operative on one's conscience or ethical judgment <a moral obligation> e : capable of right and wrong action <a moral agent>
2 : probable though not proved : VIRTUAL <a moral certainty>
3 : having the effects of such on the mind, confidence, or will <a moral victory> <moral support>



Ethics from Webster's
Ethics: 1 plural but singular or plural in construction : the discipline dealing with what is good and bad and with moral duty and obligation
2 a : a set of moral principles or values b : a theory or system of moral values <the present-day materialistic ethic> c : plural but singular or plural in construction : the principles of conduct governing an individual or a group <professional ethics> d : a guiding philosophy

Originally posted by fritz_269

Moppie, did you say that? Perhaps you should explain what you mean by a "Tragic Dillema", and why you seem to think it is of no use in philosophy. (Or why I shouldn't just rail on you for copping out of the question! ;) )


Bite me! :flipa:
Yes I did say that, because that is the point of the problem.
(Fritz I do believe Iv just found a chink in your intelectual armer: Ethics. :D )

Tragic Dellema, also Unresolvable dellema: An Ethical problem that has no Right action. Any action taken will result in a wrong or negative consequence. In the above example there are only two Actions that maybe taken, and both will lead to the loss of human life. Since I place an infinite value on all human life I find the dellema unresolvable.

A common method of attacking any particular ethical theory is to chalange it with a problem that it can't solve with out doing something that is pretty much held to be universaly wrong. In this case it is Murder. If the theory can't solve the problem then it must be flawed, and so need modifing in some way, or dropping altogether in favour of something else.

However there are at least two ways of dealing with this. You can take the "so what approach" Which is the most common approach taken by most consequentialists, they will simply say of the above example that it is best to Kill the 3 people to save the Many people. Altough this still results in a bad a consequence it is the best of the two options.
(and Yes Yoggs, there are ONLY TWO, options.)

Or you can simply claim that there are such things as Unresolvable dellemas, and that is little we can do about them, but try and find the lesser of the evils.

(now prehaps I should rail on you? ;) )

Originally posted by fritz_269
Dang, I'm falling behind. Fun thread. :)
[QUOTE]Originally posted by DVSNCYNIKL
But I am going to disagree with you again Fritz, no hard feelings.:D
Of course not! :D No hard feelings from my end either please! :devil:

Some responses:

I think there is a something being mistaken(can't think of a better word). I don't see it so much as a moral issue, rather a reasoning issue...
You confuse me right off the bat here - In an earlier post you stated, "Human behavior is such that deep down inside we are motivated by Emotion. Thus, emotion in every sense of the word dictates our motives.... you really rely on what you feel rather than what is good or best..." so I'm honestly a bit unclear on where you stand. It seems to me that you may be implying that you find morality to be a totally subjective, emotional and irrational idea? Is that right?



Sorry for the confusion. I'll try to explain that answer better. You kinda hit on the nail when you said subjective. My thinking is like that of a realist. Therefore, I believe emotion is seperate from morals. Ethics, is it's own thing. For me, Ethics is more of what is taught to you. You choose to accept those definitions on your own terms. When I said emotional, what might seem agonizing to you, may not be the case for me. Morally speaking, this scenario would be wrong by all counts since you are murdering people be they to save the majority or kill the minority. Ethics should be used as a measure of rightousneous(spell check:silly2: ). Now, my whole thing is and maybe it's just my perception. But you can't rely on someone else's honesty to save the village. So rather than risk being betrayed and having them all die, I'm doing something different. I gambling on the possibility that if I cut the enemies head off, the rest of it's body will wither away, in this case, the soldiers. The villagers might be brave enough to take them on and do away with the threat. I know it sounds ludicrous, but I feel I have more control in this situation.

Geeee thanks for telling me about this thread DVS :bloated: :bloated:

This is not really something i'd want to go though in real live.

Well if it was me i wouldnt trust the people that have tried to take over the village, or that want me to do the killing of these people.

In this situation i wouldn't trust them as far as i could throw one.

You really are in a no win sitation. As hard as it may seem i'd probably try and take out as many as i could, before they took me out.
In my veiw, if i kill the 3 in front of me they would still either kill me or burn the village

Yeah, theyre probably gonna laugh as you kill your family, kill everyone else in the village, leave you last to know that all of their deaths were in vain, and finally kill you, or they could let you live, knowing what youve done...

Well seeing as most of you are not good readers and didnt read the part about the gun being jammed, you would know that you cant take out anyone with bullets, and if anything like any war movie i seen, they usually have people there with guns pointed at your head, so, as soon as you pull the triggerin the direction of a soldier, you die, when your asked to beat down the 3 ppl, u either beat them down till there dead, or u watch them get beat down

i would rather ask the 3 ppl to kill them selfs cuz there gonna die anyway or pull out my dick and shove it in the generals mouth :eek: