Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Moral Question
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Moral Question

post #1 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:45am
Thread Starter 
Would you kill one man to save 1000? Does the practical morality of maximizing utility for humanity (assuming all 1,001 men are equal in everything) override the personal moral code that murder is a bad thing?
Reply
Reply
post #2 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:47am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Would you kill one man to save 1000? Does the practical morality of maximizing utility for humanity (assuming all 1,001 men are equal in everything) override the personal moral code that murder is a bad thing?
Need more info. Is that one man my brother? My father? A2M? Edit: Sorry, equal in everything, so I'm going to guess all of equal personal value to me. The one guy gets offed.
Reply
Reply
post #3 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:48am
Thread Starter 
I said they were all equal. Assume they are all strangers to you and of equal moral and social standing and importance. No A2M explicitly involved, but maybe in their past they dabbled in it.
Reply
Reply
post #4 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:55am
Thread Starter 
Also, please consider the logical implications of saying you would kill 1 to save 1,000. This implies it is alright to do so because you are saving more than you are killing.

Would it follow that you would kill 2 for 1,000?
5 for 1,000?
999 for 1,000?

Where does it stop being morally correct and start becoming something of a Communist dictator style genocide? At 435?
Reply
Reply
post #5 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by MetroStyles View Post
Also, please consider the logical implications of saying you would kill 1 to save 1,000. This implies it is alright to do so because you are saving more than you are killing.

Would it follow that you would kill 2 for 1,000?
5 for 1,000?
999 for 1,000?

Where does it stop being morally correct and start becoming something of a Communist dictator style genocide? At 435?

Well, if you're in crazy world, where your only two choices are death of Group A or death of Group B, you simply chose the larger group, even if it's just by one.
Reply
Reply
post #6 of 52
8/7/09 at 12:59am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post
Well, if you're in crazy world, where your only two choices are death of Group A or death of Group B, you simply chose the larger group, even if it's just by one.

Right that is the utility-maximizing moral view. The other is that all you can control is what you do yourself. If the other 1000 will die, but not at your hand and not by your free will (implicitly yes but not explicitly), one could contend that it is still morally wrong to kill the 999 people.

I should have specified that the 1,000 will be killed by another man who is giving you the choice to personally kill the innocents to protect the group. It is not a choice of you personally killing one group or the other.
Reply
Reply
post #7 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:09am
..
Reply
Reply
post #8 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:15am
Kill 1 to save 1000. Absolutely. Waterboard 1 to save 1000. That's where I draw the line damn it.
Reply
Reply
post #9 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:23am
Does this have anything to do with a certain 64th anniversary?
Reply
Reply
post #10 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:27am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Concordia View Post
Does this have anything to do with a certain 64th anniversary?

Not consciously.

By the way, I personally am torn between the two. It makes a lot of sense practically, and as a person who is not very morally disciplined, I would not hesitate to pull the trigger on the one guy. But theoretically I would not be alright with killing 999 men myself to save 1,000 that someone else would kill. I cannot logically explain why, which is why I wanted to see if anyone out there could drop some enlightenment on me.
Reply
Reply
post #11 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:28am
There was a Harvard study like this -- the questions were all contrived to limit reality to certain prearranged choices. Stupid. ~ H
Reply
Reply
post #12 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:34am
No. It's a false choice anyway.
Reply
Reply
post #13 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:34am
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Huntsman View Post
There was a Harvard study like this -- the questions were all contrived to limit reality to certain prearranged choices. Stupid.

~ H

Any discussion on morality requires the limitation of reality and degrees of freedom. Otherwise moral rules could not be formed. Laws are a similar beast.
Reply
Reply
post #14 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:39am
How can you know you are not being tested, when the question is posed? That is, how can you be certain that your inaction will result in 1000 deaths? I can not think of any likely real scenario in which you could, but the "test" scenario is all too plausible -- if it hasn't been implemented already.
Reply
Reply
post #15 of 52
8/7/09 at 1:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bird's One View View Post
How can you know you are not being tested, when the question is posed? That is, how can you be certain that your inaction will result in 1000 deaths? I can not think of any likely real scenario in which you could, but the "test" scenario is all too plausible -- if it hasn't been implemented already.

It's a thought experiment aiming at having you ponder an ethical dilemma, not a trick question.
Reply
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Chat
Styleforum › Forums › General › General Chat › Moral Question