I posted this hypothetical in another thread, and it’s stuck with me, so I’m giving it it’s own thread now. When looking at the two scenarios below, think of your immediate reaction to each before trying to analyze why you think that way. Also, assume that any actions taken are done so voluntarily and with no question of insanity or emotional state.
Background
There’s a well known joke about two guys running into a bear in the woods. They start running, and one guy says, “What are we doing? We can’t outrun a bear.” The other guy replies, “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.”
Suppose Person A and B are in the woods. A is much faster than B; both know this. They meet a bear, who charges them. This is a humongous bear, it is faster than both A and B, and neither A nor B has a weapon of any kind. There are no clever McGyver tricks that will save either one.
Scenario 1
Suppose B, knowing he’s far slower than A, kicked A hard in the knee so he could outrun A. This allows B to escape. I think most people would think B has done something morally reprehensible and likely criminal as well.
Scenario 2
However, suppose A and B turn to run. A outruns B. While the bear is killing B, A gains enough distance to escape. Although most people would think it brave had A charged the bear to try to save B, few people would think A did anything morally wrong in fleeing and saving his own life.
The Question
Why do most people have this reaction? I’m interested for several reasons. First, I think many people have a fairly reliable moral compass that will produce “correct” moral decisions for which the reasons cannot be readily explained. Second, I’m very interested in why there is a general bias to examining actions rather than the outcome in judging morality. It’s not that outcomes are ignored, but that actions that produce identical outcomes can have different moral foundations. I find this curious.
On a deeper level, it means that humans will be penalized in survivability based on what their natural gifts are. If someone is a fast runner, they have an advantage in escaping bears. If someone is sneaky and can kick human knees well, the advantage can’t be used in a moral fashion to escape from bears.
By the way, if anyone had different immediate reactions than what I described above, please explain. I’d be fascinated to see how correct my general impressions are on this.
Dagonee P.S., I’m not interested in this topic because my knees could be used to make scary door sound effects in horror movies. Really.
P.P.S. Anyone want to go camping? Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
I think the idea that B kicking A in the kneecaps is morally wrong because it is through direct action on the part of B that A dies. In the second senario, there is nothing that A does _to_ B that means he ends up being the bear's lunch (it's not like he ties him to a tree and then runs off).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I agree, that's where the difference lies. But this skips the real question. Why is direct action such an important factor? It's a concept I can't quite articulate, but have floating around somewhere in my brain.
Dagonee
Posted by ludosti (Member # 1772) on :
Because, it's not particularly conducive to any sort of society to have people ruining others' plans and lives.
Deliberate actions that negatively affect others are considered "bad".
[ August 13, 2004, 11:49 PM: Message edited by: ludosti ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True, but actions that harm others are allowed in certain instances. Self defense is the obvious example, although it's different in that the aggressor's actions initiate the ultimate harm to him. But there are situations where someone is allowed to harm an innocent person to preserve their own life.
For example, in some instances person A could get away with shooting an innocent victim if a criminal threatened to shoot A if he didn't. But tripping B to make the bear get him instead of A probably wouldn't pass this justification defense.
Also, most societies don't require some actions that would be beneficial to its members, such as imposing a duty to rescue when there's no risk to the rescuer.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm trying to take the analysis to a further level and heighten the distinctions.
Let's refine it with another hypothetical. Suppose two men fall overboard, and there's a plank in the ocean only one person can fit on. Person A reaches it first. Has he done anything wrong if he refuses to share the plank at enormous risk to his life? Has B done anything wrong if he takes the plank from A?
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
It's a fascinating question, and as I type this I haven't formulated an answer yet. But I will take a stab at it, thinking as I go.
We are assuming that A is naturally a faster runner than B, is that correct? Is this something both of them are distinctly aware of?
I suppose we could examine this more closely by changing the severity of the circumstances to, say, performance in a class graded on a curve. (Where only so many people can get certain grades.) In such an environment, competition is hurtful in a similar sort of way, though not in a life-threatening way.
If A is a better performer than B, no one faults him for B's lower grade. But if B somehow tries to sabatoge A's work thus putting himself ahead of A, he has altered the nature of the situation, the parameters, to harm A.
So basically, if nature favors A, we do not blame A for it. But if B sabotages A because he knows he is at a natural disadvantage, this is viewed as bad.
Am I getting anywhere near the answer?
Posted by dabbler (Member # 6443) on :
My initial solution was that A and B should run in different directions, increasing the "not-my-fault" feeling.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Perhaps there is a heirarchy of goodness here, with B (the weaker element) sabatoging A as being most wrong, A using his natural advantage to the detriment of B as not quite as wrong, but A doing all he can to lift or save B (in the school class example, A could help B study) being the most noble of all.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:So basically, if nature favors A, we do not blame A for it. But if B sabotages A because he knows he is at a natural disadvantage, this is viewed as bad.
Am I getting anywhere near the answer?
I think so, beverly. This scenario first popped into my mind in response to something CT wrote about the illogic of believing full human personhood attaches at conception, because there's little concern for the 40-70% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant.
Resolving this portion of the problem only gets me halfway to preparing a coherent response to that, but I can't proceed until I figure out why something being the natural outcome is somehow morally preferable.
Dagonee
[ August 14, 2004, 12:04 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:My initial solution was that A and B should run in different directions, increasing the "not-my-fault" feeling.
I'd like that answer if I were in "computer programmer thinking outside the box" mode, but I'm in "moral and ethical philosopher" mode, so I'll add a further assumption that there's only one safe direction.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
I think for the religious, there is the idea that we are held accountable for our actions. If we could have helped someone and didn't, we will feel the weight of that in the eternities when the great balance is made.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
That's why I had this scenario try to be clear that A can't really help B - he could choose to die with him, or possibly instead of him, but not save B and himself.
Clearly, many (but not all - see Ayn Rand) would consider A sacrificing himself to be a noble act. But few would think it's morally required, especially when you consider that B would then have the moral obligation to sacrifice himself for A.
Dagonee
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
You see these sort of scenarios in movies an awful lot, since they don't crop up so often in life and they make for a good action scene.
One person says, "Go on without me! Save yourself!"
The other says, "No! I won't leave you!"
Sometimes they stay and save the other guy by some miracle, sometimes they go ahead and save themselves when they see there is no way to help. But it is rare (if ever) that the movie then depicts them dying together.
But in "movie morality" it seems requisit that the other who can get away at least tries to stay behind with the less fortunate one. There must be at least the "apperance of nobility."
[ August 14, 2004, 12:24 AM: Message edited by: beverly ]
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
Not trying to turn this into a Rand thread, but...
quote: Clearly, many (but not all - see Ayn Rand) would consider A sacrificing himself to be a noble act.
quote: That's why I had this scenario try to be clear that A can't really help B - he could choose to die with him, or possibly instead of him, but not save B and himself.
If A KNOWS that he can not really help B, and that it would mean the death of both of them, how is it noble for him to die? The only possible benefit in that scenerio is that A wouldn't have to live with the guilt of leaving a man behind. I see this as cowardly, foolish, and lacking in any virtue whatsoever.
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
Dag,
why didn't they kick the bear in the knees?
falow
Posted by Amanecer (Member # 4068) on :
As for the original question:
quote: On a deeper level, it means that humans will be penalized in survivability based on what their natural gifts are. If someone is a fast runner, they have an advantage in escaping bears. If someone is sneaky and can kick human knees well, the advantage can’t be used in a moral fashion to escape from bears.
I think the difference lies not in what gifts someone is given, but in what way they are being used. By tripping A, B is using his sneaky gifts destructively towards others. If B truly wanted to use his sneaky gifts in a constructive manner, he could attempt to trip the bear and avert danger. Or climb a tree, or anything constructive. By running, A is not being destructive or constructive, but a moral neutral.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
OK, I'm going off track here... but consider this:
What if A is naturally a fast runner and B is naturally a good liar.
B tells A: "I heard the best way to defend yourself is to assume the fetal position."
Now A and B are not friends or anything, so A has absolutely no reason to believe B. However, B is a natuarl liar and A buys B's story.
Is this better or worse than B kicking A in the knees?
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
does the bear not have knees?
fallow
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The difference in killing and Murder. Killing is the act of taking a life without any reference to the circumstance. Murder is the taking of a life for selfish reasons.
Direct action takes the connotation of responsibility versus "act of nature." We had this argument on another thread - if we let the inevitable run it's course, we can't be held directly accountable. If we take move proactively, we are altering the course of natural events and must take responsibility or assume accountability for our actions.
And in your scenario, subject A might run away while subject B is eaten - but if B is a woman or a child, A's lack of action can be just as damning as any direct action.
I refer you to the "most amoral man in America" case - a friend who walks away while his buddy drags a girl into a rest room. The "friend" does not have an affirmative responsibility in the legal sense, but his failure to act has garnered outrage from a number of sources.
Another wrinkle - doctors and legitimate (licensed) medical personnel who do not render aid and assistance can be penalized, thereby assigning certain people an affirmative responsibility and punishment when they fail to act in the affirmative.
If you've managed to read to this point, thanks -> and I won't swear to having made sense.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Actually, that is the best way to fake off a bear, Beren.
If B lies to A and tells A, "Sure, you can outrun the bear - go for it!"
That would be considered direct action and no less offensive than A kicking B in the knees and leaving him for bear droppings.
By the way, you aren't going to outrun a bear. B has a better chance of surviving than A does at this point.
-Trevor
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
One thing's for sure. Never invite A or B on a camping trip.
fallow
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
I'm going camping with Trevor. He knows all the good tricks.
*assumes fetal position*
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If A KNOWS that he can not really help B, and that it would mean the death of both of them, how is it noble for him to die?
That's not what's been proposed - If A attacks the bear and B runs, B will survive, because the bear will spend enough time mauling A to allow B to live. That's why many would consider it a noble act.
quote:By the way, you aren't going to outrun a bear. B has a better chance of surviving than A does at this point.
No one's outrunning the bear. The idea is that the bear will stop pursuing one once it catches the other.
quote:B tells A: "I heard the best way to defend yourself is to assume the fetal position."
Now A and B are not friends or anything, so A has absolutely no reason to believe B. However, B is a natuarl liar and A buys B's story.
Is this better or worse than B kicking A in the knees?
This is a good twist to the hypo. Do people consider this to be as amoral as actively tripping the bear?
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
In our commonly accepted society, self-sacrifice is noble. I note "our commonly accepted society" because not everyone would agree.
I added the commment about not outrunning the bear to illustrate the sneakiness of B telling A to keep running, knowing it's impossible of A to outrun the bear while B curls up.
That's not a twist as you're supposed to assume the fetal position.
And yes, I said that was as immoral as tripping as you are taking deliberate action in creating a consequence.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
If B tells A to run, and A does while B does not, A will survive, B will die, because the bear will spend some time playing with B in the fetal position.
The fetal position is the best way to survive a bear attack because you can't outrun it. But it's not like it leaves you a good chance of surviving without serious injuries.
If the bear's not chasing you, then you're not outrunning it.
By the way, people have been killed by mountain lions they probably could have fought off because they used the bear technique and curled into a fetal position. That just makes the mountain lion happy. They'll usually run if they're not famished and you make it difficult and/or painful for them to keep attacking.
Dagonee
Posted by romanylass (Member # 6306) on :
I personally think the moral thing for A to do is run back and help B. Even if we would die.
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
I think that there are two ethical questions here and that you can look at them independently.
The first is: "Who has more right to survive the bear attack." I think that the answer to this is that neither A nor B has more legitimate claim to survival. Because of this belief, I think that it is not morally reprehensible for either A or B to attempt to survive.
The second ethical question is: "What action taken to effect survival are ethical?" In this case I think it is appropriate to use your social norms to decide if actions are ethical. Face it, there are a broad range of actions available. We've explored each just running, B injuring A, B lying to A. But really, based on our social mores, there is a graduation of how ethical these behaviors might be. B could outright kill A and get the same result, ie. the bear stop to eat A. I would say that this is less ethical than the lying technique.
So, I think that the reason my first response to the scenario is that it is unethical for B to kick A in the knee is that I would rather have A as a member of my society because he did not choose to injure another citizen for his own personal gain.
However, upon reflection I don't see it as unethical for B to attempt to survive the situation.
Posted by Beren One Hand (Member # 3403) on :
That's an interesting response Rubble.
Do morals and ethics have meaning outside the context of encouraging social norms?
For example, let's say A and B were the last two people on earth. They are both guys, so there is no hope of them rekindling human society Adam and Eve style.
Would it still be unethical for B to kick or lie to A?
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
beren,
It doesn't matter, unless you think that the winner is going to mate with the bear!
Only one of A and B can survive. Which has more right to survival? In my mind, neither has more right. In the case that you pose, the end result is going to be a society of one, so in my mind the second of my ethical dilemmas never comes into play. Only the first matters and my answer is survive any way you can. The right to life is your first and only right at that time.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
So you argue for an outcome-based morality, rubble?
I wonder why societies have shied away from this historically.
Dagonee
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Dag,
I don't think I meant that. I may have spoken hastily. I believe A and B have an equal claim to their right to life.
Now I don't dispute that in a society of peers just about any action that B will take to survive would be "immoral". However, when no society will exist after the fact why does it matter? Who is left to judge B for his or her actions?
Different answers to these questions will lead one to have different views about the "morality" of B's actions; however my answers are based on the premise that there will be noone left to judge B. Also bear in mind that this is specifically aimed at Beren's situation, not a generic situation where A or B will still have to answer for their actions to a civil society.
I certainly don't believe that B's right to life puts a burden on A to grant his survival as has been suggested above.
p.s. I haven't discussed / debated ethics like this a lot, so if I'm being a jerk please don't keep it to yourself. I promise not to be offended if you call me out for missing something obvious (or subtle for that matter).
[ August 14, 2004, 09:45 PM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
The end justifies the means?
-Trevor
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Is it always immoral to kill?
Is there such thing as a moral war?
My take is that self defense is a justification for killing another human. Is B's survival self defense?
With the bear out of the equation what avenues does B have for self defense from physical harm from A?
All I'm trying to argue is that B has the right to self defense. I'm not trying to argue that in any situation the ends justify the means. I do, however, believe that in the case of self defense everything up to and including killing is acceptable as long as it is the only alternative.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe that a person has no right to commit suicide. However, risking your life to save another's is acceptible (but never required). Thus, if you will almost certainly both die if you stay and/or attack the bear, that would be a stupid waste. However, if you staying is likely to save the other person (and maybe you as well?), I would consider that noble but not morally required. Nor should you bear any guilt if you chose not to do so.
As far as outrunning the bear, let's look at the alternative. If you don't run, it quickly becomes tantamount to making the choice to sacrifice yourself.
So I would run. And since most people could outrun me, I'd get eaten.
Sometimes it sucks to be me.
[ August 14, 2004, 10:46 PM: Message edited by: rivka ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:Is it always immoral to kill?
Nope.
quote:Is there such a thing as a moral war?
Sure.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:rubble said: p.s. I haven't discussed / debated ethics like this a lot, so if I'm being a jerk please don't keep it to yourself. I promise not to be offended if you call me out for missing something obvious (or subtle for that matter).
You’re absolutely not being a jerk – this is exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to create. It goes back to the fact that I think there’s a form of moral intuition that leads us to view certain actions as right or wrong without being able to articulate the reasons, at least without a lot of thought.
You stated something that could suggest outcome based morality. When I pointed this out, you clarified. I do find it interesting that almost no one so far is happy with outcome-based morality.
An outcome based morality could be described that meets Trevor’s “end justifies means” question, simply by making sure that interim outcomes are accounted for. But no one seems comfortable doing this. I know I don’t. What I’m trying to do is understand why, and every post in this discussion is helping.
quote: All I'm trying to argue is that B has the right to self defense. I'm not trying to argue that in any situation the ends justify the means. I do, however, believe that in the case of self defense everything up to and including killing is acceptable as long as it is the only alternative.
OK, but self defense usually implies that the person being harmed is the one who created the risk to life being defended against. Someone tries to stab me, and I shoot him, I have defended myself. But in this scenario, the person being harmed is not the one who created the danger. I can’t quite tell from above – are you saying B’s kick is morally OK if there is no larger society, but immoral if there is a society to return to?
quote:rivka said: I believe that a person has no right to commit suicide. However, risking your life to save another's is acceptible (but never required). Thus, if you will almost certainly both die if you stay and/or attack the bear, that would be a stupid waste. However, if you staying is likely to save the other person (and maybe you as well?), I would consider that noble but not morally required. Nor should you bear any guilt if you chose not to do so.
As far as outrunning the bear, let's look at the alternative. If you don't run, it quickly becomes tantamount to making the choice to sacrifice yourself.
So I would run. And since most people could outrun me, I'd get eaten.
Sometimes it sucks to be me.
This is exactly where I am. I assume you consider the kick to be immoral, as do I. I get as far as “The kick is a positive act which the actor knows will cause great harm.” But I can’t get articulate why the positive act is the determining factor.
And I bet you could outrun me.
quote:TMedina said: ------------------------------------------------- quote:Is it always immoral to kill? -------------------------------------------------
Nope.
I agree entirely, and I think it’s wrapped up in the self defense analysis, but I can’t untangle why it’s not OK here.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Um...because it just is? Or that's how contemporary society has moved in terms of the social dynamic?
When we look at the definition of Murder, we are evaluating the circumstances and motivations under which a person kills.
There are situations in which a person is sacrificed for the greater whole - the lowest ranking member of a squad is ordered to take off his or her CB gear to determine if the area is free of contaminants.
I suppose the simple fact is - I don't know. I submit not everyone would find the idea of sacrificing someone else to save themselves repugnant or distasteful. If a man sacrificed someone smaller or weaker than himself, society may be less forgiving - but that would depend on the audience.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:because it just is?
That's the answer I'm trying to get past, and I'm becoming increasingly pessimistic about my ability to do so.
[ August 15, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
If it's any consolation, the Spartans wouldn't have seen a problem with it - survival of the fittest and so on.
If you weren't fast enough or clever enough to defeat the bear, you deserved to be eaten.
So, like most morality, the inherent right or wrong is the opinion of the audience.
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Maybe the reason why this doesn't disturb me is that I am used to looking at actions as far more significant than than thoughts. Motivations matter, but actions matter more.
Actively ACTING in a way that a priori reduces the likelihood of survival of someone else is far different than acting in a way whose primary goal is saving your own life (and secondarily leaving someone else behind as bait ).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It doesn't disturb me - I'm very comfortable with the moral conclusion. It's just that I've identified a large area in my moral reasoning that I can't explain adequately, and it's an area with very important ramifications in other actions than bear-baiting.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
With respect Dag, your moral reasoning is a product of social pressure.
Whether you were taught your set of values by the Church, by your parents, by your peers, by your experiences and conclusions or any combination thereof, your moral reasoning has outside factors.
You are questioning, if I understand the point of this thread correctly, the how and why you came to have this particular set of moral values.
Why do we pick up habits and quirks? There are reasons which we may not be fully aware of - although if we look back with a complete accounting of our lives, we might be able to discern key points where we picked up trait A or habit B.
Just random thoughts that might or might not apply to you.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm aware of that, but I'm trying to develop the reasoning which says why this is a valid moral statement. I realize ultimately this must go back to first principles, and maybe the first principle is that harm caused by direct application of force is more culpable than harm caused by abandonment. I'm just trying to see if I can peel another layer off it.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Harm caused by action is worse than harm caused by failure to act.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
I honestly don't think there is another layer.
Society may have developed these definitions for it's own reasons - why did Chivalry develop? Why did it become popular and therefore socially accepted to defend the weak?
By understanding these social trends, will you feel you've acquired a sufficiently thorough answer to your question?
You can continue to ask "why?" and eventually the answer will be, "just because."
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Yes (Edit: To Rivka), but the running away by B was an action that doomed B, yet we (me included) categorize that as failing to act to help. Is the meat of the distinction the fact that this is what A would have done if B had not been there, even though it likely wouldn't have helped? Or is there something more.
Dagonee
[ August 15, 2004, 01:13 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Why is that Rivka? Why do we believe that particular concept rather than the reverse?
So cowards can remain comfortable in their cowardice and still sleep at night? (Sorry, Devil's Advocate)
-Trevor
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
It doesn't directly doom B. It may indirectly do so. But the action (running away) acts to save A, and only dooms B based on B's actions.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
I believe each person has a right and responsibility to take care of their own life and health, Trevor. So I don't view living up to that responsibility as cowardice.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote: It doesn't directly doom B.
By removing the bear's choice of prey, is that not a direct influence on B's situation?
Would it make a difference if A intended to strand B with a bear or simply happened on the same bear at the same time?
-Trevor
Edit: Added quotes Edit 2: Rivka, fair enough.
[ August 15, 2004, 01:20 PM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:You can continue to ask "why?" and eventually the answer will be, "just because."
Agreed. I'm comfortable, for example, with the first principle that human life is precious and that it is good to preserve it. I have nothing other than "Just because" to offer for that except my religious beliefs. Yet most people are comfortable categorizing murder laws as based in secular moral reasoning. So there's something about life-is-precious that most people can agree on, even as they differ on many individual applications of it.
For some reason I'm not comfortable with the action v. inaction distinction at issue here as a first principle, even though I see the distinction as valid. Maybe it's because I can see both sides serving to fulfill the life-is-precious principle. There's some other principle more basic than action v. inaction that's acting in concert with life-is-precious to help form this result.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Sorry, Devil's Advocate
I'm hoping that's how everyone is taking everyone else's posts in this thread. I'm questioning everybody, although I've not disagreed with much if anything.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:It doesn't directly doom B. It may indirectly do so. But the action (running away) acts to save A, and only dooms B based on B's actions.
The direct/indirect distinction is really a continuum, although I view this one as being comfortably on the indirect side. The plank example above I consider a little more direct, although still probably direct. What if two people grab the plank, which will sink under the combined wait. Is kicking moral at that point?
quote:I believe each person has a right and responsibility to take care of their own life and health, Trevor. So I don't view living up to that responsibility as cowardice.
Is there a point where inaction becomes immoral? I’m thinking of no-risk scenarios where A could save B with little effort, such as by tossing B a life preserver. In general, there’s no such duty under the law, but is there morally? If so, where does the risk or cost become great enough to make the inaction moral.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Secular law tends to be based either on practicality and influence from religious beliefs.
Society is organized, structured. Humanity could not survive or thrive without some form of structure and at some point, this was recognized and put into law.
We recognize certain basic rights for the human condition to exist peaceably - most notably the right to property.
For a long time, one could kill or murder legally - dueling, for example. Even today, it is not uncommon to kill a woman or a girl who has shamed her family in certain parts of the world.
The Church was interested in cementing it's role in the coronation of secular kings because it gave the Church a certain authority and voice in the process and therefore in society.
Taking a step back, secular laws have a two-fold purpose:
1. To ensure people abide and function by a similar code of conduct. Otherwise, anarchy prevails and it becomes difficult to progress.
2. To give governing bodies power and status, therefore authority beyond the point of a spear or the barrel of a gun. Although it is argued that all authority is derived from the application or the threat of force.
-Trevor
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
quote:
quote: quote:I believe each person has a right and responsibility to take care of their own life and health, Trevor. So I don't view living up to that responsibility as cowardice.
Is there a point where inaction becomes immoral? I’m thinking of no-risk scenarios where A could save B with little effort, such as by tossing B a life preserver. In general, there’s no such duty under the law, but is there morally? If so, where does the risk or cost become great enough to make the inaction moral.
To take an extreme example - If A was a father and B was his daughter, would we still uphold the father's right to survival at the cost of his daughter?
Depending on your perception and subjective moral value, Dag, yes. If I stand by and watch a woman be raped and murdered, I may or may not be prosecuted for my failure to act.
But I would hold myself morally responsible for that failure to act. In the court of public opinion, I suspect people would or could argue either way.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:If I stand by and watch a woman be raped and murdered, I may or may not be prosecuted for my failure to act.
Actually, assuming the standing and watching wasn't done as a participant, you would only be prosecuted for failing to act if you had a contractual obligation to protect her from attack or if you had some other relationship that created a duty to risk your life for her. In general, you don't even have to call 911.
The law recognizes criminal liability for failure to act only when there is a duty to act. Duty arises from relationships - contractual, parental, spousal - or if the person created the dangerous situation somehow. Morality generally extends this sense of duty much farther than the law does.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Not to derail the thread, depending on how cranky the detective or prosecuting attorney happens to be, they might make a case that by not acting, I was a participant.
Along the same reasoning someone in a car gets busted as an accessory when the driver decides to do something stupid.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
True, but technically, the prosecutor has to prove as an element of the crime that they were acting in concert, although this can be inferred from the actions. This means the person isn't being charged with not acting but with actually participating.
Of course, I'm sure the proof of this is often lacking in convictions on these facts.
Dagonee
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I see this as cowardly, foolish, and lacking in any virtue whatsoever.
This assumes that the desire to live, in and of itself, is a virtue. I see no reason why that desire should be called virtuous.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It's possible that desire to live could not be virtuous but that sacrificing your own life in a knowingly futile attempt to save another is not virtuous either, which is the situation I think this comment was in reference to.
I'm also not sure desire to live isn't virtuous. This desire may be one that must often be subordinated to other virtues, but careless risk-taking would seem like an unvirtuous act to me.
Dagonee
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Careless risk-taking to what end?
For kicks? The thrill? I'll grant you it's probably not virtuous. To save your child from impending death, it could certainly be argued the other way.
Although furthering the human experience might be argued as serving the greater good - a willingness to sacrifice one's safety for the good of the group could be a noble act.
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I should have said purposeless (or for a "frivolous" purpose) careless risk-taking. You're right, there are situations when risking your life is virtuous.
Risking your life to go surfing during a hurricane and orphaning your children would be un-virtuous.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
I know that earlier in this topic, the issue was raised, "What if A tied B to a tree before he ran off...?"
Please, no one here should consider that. "A" would be haunted by the terrible screams of his dear, dear friend "B" for the rest of his life.
As I am, every day.
[ August 15, 2004, 05:55 PM: Message edited by: ssywak ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
at both of you.
Oh wait, that's wrong. Just wrong.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well, that does answer the age old question:
Just what does a bear sh!t in the woods?
-Trevor
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
No, but I saw the the movie and loved the lead actress. Ursine when the badger dies is heartwrenching.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
It was the polar opposite of her work in her last film. She just panda'd to the audience in that one.
[ August 15, 2004, 08:04 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wow, this thread has changed while I was away. I guess I should grin and bear it.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm only letting people play until the KamaCon people are on, and then it's back to the philosophy grindstone for all of you.
Although maybe this should be adjorned for drinks. It'll be a beer in stein bear talk.
Dagonee
Posted by ssywak (Member # 807) on :
(And to think that I was actually starting to like Dag)
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
Dag,
I'm going to try this one on for size one more time and then leave it...
Why is it ethically wrong for B to kick A? A is about to leave B in the woods as chum so that he can escape. You stated up front that each of them knows that B can't keep up and A is about to haul but. If you accept that B has as much right to life as A, why does B not have whatever remedy is available to preserve his or her (I can't "bear" to say its) life? Why isn't A's leaving B to die an active harm? He knows the deadly consequences prior to acting.
I think that the ethical norm that one should not harm another is a societal norm.
I think that the right to life is fundamental.
Obviously you must emphasize "think" in the above because there is no proof of either.
Also, I was surprised that you didn't call me on my earlier statment that after the demise of either A or B there would be noone left to judge the remaining person. Many would claim that the moral necessity to refrain from harming another is primary because of their religious beliefs. Would that be a valid argument?
[ August 16, 2004, 12:45 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by fallow (Member # 6268) on :
rubble,
is this a logic thing? logic holds a pretty tenuous hold 'round here.
falllow
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I'm going to try this one on for size one more time and then leave it...
It’s frustrating, isn’t it. But I hope it’s been fun, too.
quote: Why is it ethically wrong for B to kick A? A is about to leave B in the woods as chum so that he can escape. You stated up front that each of them knows that B can't keep up and A is about to haul but. If you accept that B has as much right to life as A, why does B not have whatever remedy is available to preserve his or her (I can't "bear" to say its) life? Why isn't A's leaving B to die an active harm? He knows the deadly consequences prior to acting.
This is the part I’m trying to narrow down. I’m starting with a premise that the internal moral compass that triggers the majority answer on this so far is right (and not because it’s the majority, but because it’s mine ). I think it’s clear that a great many people feel A’s running is not an active harm, whereas B’s kicking is. I’m trying to tease out the difference between the two. So far Rivka’s come closest by distinguishing between the results and the purpose (The purpose of A running is to save his life, the purpose of B kicking is to cripple A so A can’t run.) Obviously, there’s a lot of room for semantic play in this.
quote:I think that the ethical norm that one should not harm another is a societal norm.
I think that the right to life is fundamental.
Obviously you must emphasize "think" in the above because there is no proof of either.
I think most moral systems will say that there are some things you can’t do to save your own life. In utilitarian systems, it would come down to harm done v. harm avoided, maybe by judging the total worth of lives lost against total worth of lives saved. In others, it would come down to the culpability of the person harmed by the defensive action. I can shoot someone trying to murder me, but not someone innocent of creating the harm I’m trying to avoid.
Since we’re examining edge cases, let’s look at the classic utilitarian hypothetical: Is it acceptable to kill one person to harvest organs that will save 10 other people and give sight back to 2 more?
quote:Also, I was surprised that you didn't call me on my earlier statment that after the demise of either A or B there would be noone left to judge the remaining person. Many would claim that the moral necessity to refrain from harming another is primary because of their religious beliefs. Would that be a valid argument?
Well, I’ve been trying to avoid tying this to God’s view, not because I believe that is invalid but because I believe God’s morality is meant to be discovered with reason. Ultimately, in my beliefs, it all comes down to “Because God made it so.” But there are certain principles of morality that are most basic, the equivalent of postulates and core definitions in geometry, and there are other principles that are derivable from these postulates.
It seems to me the action v. inaction distinction ought to be derivable, though I can’t figure out that derivation yet. So in essence, if I get stop the derivation here with “because God made it so” I’m giving up on the purpose of the exercise.
As for the final observer portion, I’m afraid I simply don’t buy it – morality does not depend on observation w/in the physical world. But that IS a first principle based on faith, so there’s no point arguing it. It’s good to have the assumptions stated, though.
I really think this comes down to “rights.” We have the moral right to do certain things, but not to do others. We have the moral responsibility to do certain other things. Since in my system all this derives from God, maybe we are down to a first principle already.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Looking forward to it. Next time I check in, I'll be in Charlottesville. Happy to be going back to school, very sad to be leaving Eve again.
Dagonee
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
quote:It's frustrating isn't it? But I hope it's been fun too.
It sure has. Thanks!
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Dag, are you familiar with James Rachels' argument against the distinction between active and passive euthanasia?
It's been awhile for me, but doesn't Rachels use the Bouvia case to help bolster his arguments? And leaving out some of the messier details in the process?
*the plural of "anecdote" is not "data"*
*except in bioethics*
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
OK - I'll take your word for that. I read Rachels' account of Bouvia years ago - and he predictably stacked the deck to enhance the utility of the story to the points he wanted to make. In short, he brought the very messy story of Elizabeth Bouvia in line with his neater and cleaner hypotheticals.
My own ethics background has huge gaping holes - I'm mostly self-taught and know just enough to be really annoying. Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
If they both run downhill at an angle, they can outrun the bear.
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:But what I know of Rachels is that he was a very gentle, humane man. (He was a member of the faculty who trained me.) If some of his work was abhorrent to you, I imagine he would have wanted to know and would have wanted to think carefully and clarify or otherwise address your concerns. Unfortunately, he died recently complications of bladder cancer.
(Carefully) It's possible Rachels was as you say - it seems obvious you had some contact with him.
Nevertheless, I tend to have a "cringe reflex" when dealing with these kinds of descriptors. I've come by it honestly - the words you've used for Rachels have been said to me repeatedly by many about Peter Singer - and I know they're false. It's just that most people don't approach ethicists over matters of honesty and integrity in their work - so they don't get to see the other side.
I also just read a brief piece by Rachels dealing with infanticide and was not impressed. Like many, he doesn't seem interested in drawing distinctions between life-ending decisions involving infants who are clearly dying and infants with conditions like Down syndrome who have additional correctable-but-potentially-lethal conditions. (It's available online - I'll go back and dig out the link later.)
I myself am neither gentle nor particularly humane. I have character witnesses to back me up, too.
I'm thinking now that the comments I read from Rachels on Bouvia may have been in an interview that stayed online for a few years but is now gone. He left out the really "messy" stuff that another of your faculty people, Greg Pence, is so good at leaving in. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Dagonee, just as a reaction to your first post and not having read the other replies, how is this different from using a condom vs. rhythm method? As you explained it to me once? Or is that where this hypothetical came from?
P.S. Okay, so it was about abortion and not condoms. But I think it is a lot more relevant to the condoms. I still like my "whales beached by deliberate action" analogy to the miscarriage/abortion argument.
As to moral compasses, I think we all have a sense of right and wrong and when we try to put it in words it is easy to get mixed up. Like right now I should be cleaning my house.
[ August 16, 2004, 03:10 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: Well, I’ve been trying to avoid tying this to God’s view, not because I believe that is invalid but because I believe God’s morality is meant to be discovered with reason.
So you think the role of reason is to discover God's morality? This seems very odd to me. I follow a school that teaches that reason is often employed to obscure the moral sense.
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Well Dag, my work is done.
Seriously, I think you understand the point I'm trying to make - whether you agree with it or not.
PSI - ya know, I wouldn't gamble my life on that bet.
-Trevor
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I've heard about the running downhill also. Though the "at an angle" is an good thing to know.
The more I think about this, the more I have to agree with rivka. If A is obviously physically superior to B, A owes B protection and not abandonment.
Posted by PSI Teleport (Member # 5545) on :
I agree. I was writing a long post explaining why I agree, but I gave up and posted the tidbit about running downhill, instead.
I think the point behind it is that the bear's back legs are so much longer than his front legs that he will lose his balance and likely tumble over if he makes a serious attempt to run downhill. I'm under the impression that adding an angle to it just makes it even more difficult to stay balanced. Yay for bipedals!
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
CT and Stephen, I’m looking forward to delving into the Rachels stuff, either in this thread or in another. It sounds interesting.
quote:pooka said just as a reaction to your first post and not having read the other replies, how is this different from using a condom vs. rhythm method? As you explained it to me once? Or is that where this hypothetical came from?
P.S. Okay, so it was about abortion and not condoms. But I think it is a lot more relevant to the condoms. I still like my "whales beached by deliberate action" analogy to the miscarriage/abortion argument.
At first I didn’t get how this related to the condoms/rhythm method, but suddenly it clicked into place. Very interesting, and I think a lot of the same things come into play in both of them. I need to reflect on it.
quote:As to moral compasses, I think we all have a sense of right and wrong and when we try to put it in words it is easy to get mixed up. Like right now I should be cleaning my house.
I think we all have that sense, too, although I think it is deficient in most people in at least one way or another. I think the difficulty comes in the fact that slight differences in the priorities of different moral principles can lead to wildly different outcomes for a given situation. So you get a lot of well-meaning people differing radically on assisted suicide or euthanasia, and the differing outcomes makes it very hard for one side to see the other’s good intentions.
quote: So you think the role of reason is to discover God's morality? This seems very odd to me. I follow a school that teaches that reason is often employed to obscure the moral sense.
I think that one of the role of reason is to discover God’s morality, which is why I’m suspicious of using force (including threat of legal sanctions) to achieve moral actions unless someone else would be injured. Deciding what is a legitimate injury is problematic, of course, but not impossible.
You’re absolutely correct that reason is often employed to obscure moral sense. Often this is done consciously. It’s also done slowly, step by step, in many cases.
But that just goes to show that reason is corruptible like all other human faculties.
quote:TMedina said: Well Dag, my work is done. [Big Grin]
Seriously, I think you understand the point I'm trying to make - whether you agree with it or not.
Yep. It’s an interesting point, too, and probably true as far as predicting how an individual would determine the morality of the kick.
quote:PSI - ya know, I wouldn't gamble my life on that bet.
I wouldn’t either, but if I ever have to run from a bear, downhill is a good choice for many reasons.
quote:Pooka said:The more I think about this, the more I have to agree with rivka. If A is obviously physically superior to B, A owes B protection and not abandonment.
I think rivka said A trying to save B would be a good thing, but not morally required.
quote: PSI Teleport I agree. I was writing a long post explaining why I agree, but I gave up and posted the tidbit about running downhill, instead.
I think the point behind it is that the bear's back legs are so much longer than his front legs that he will lose his balance and likely tumble over if he makes a serious attempt to run downhill. I'm under the impression that adding an angle to it just makes it even more difficult to stay balanced. Yay for bipedals
Richard Adams has a great description of this in Watership Downs.
Dagonee
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Where is the line between A being a parent and B the child, versus A being an athlete and B a Star Trek fan?
Of course, I had a while back reconsidered my "no abortion, not even if my life were in danger" stance because now that I have other living children, I wouldn't want to deprive them of a mother. But I wouldn't leave any of my children to get eaten by a bear. So this is causing me to go back again on the earlier stance. Leaving someone with no mother is very bad, but not as bad as allowing someone to be killed.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
(Side note: AOL is the devil.)
Yeah, Dags is right. I do not believe that A is required to save B if it involves risking his own life. I think doing so is noble, though.
As to why an athlete doesn't owe a couch potato protection in the way a parent does a child . . . well, parents accept (or should) responsibilty for their minor children. Two guys taking a camping trip together have not made that sort of commitment, I assume, regardless of their relative physical shape. I would have a different response if A were responsible for B.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I guess we are only considering relationships valid only where B would be capable of impairing A. The way the scenario is described.
But the way many people think quite often, including myself, is for A to run and as he is running away, to think "I'm doing the gene pool a favor. In fact, B might have kicked me in the knees if I hadn't run. I hope that bear kills him slowly, the bass turd."
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Huh. If I were running, I think my thought process would be more like "YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!"
Might be coherent enough to come up with, "Too bad about B!"
The rationalizations would come later. Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Just what I've experienced is that I go from making a choice against my moral sense, to thinking that wasn't a bad choice, to thinking that was a good choice, to thinking I am actually the victim somehow.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
In the Smith/Jones hypo in your second link, the law would find Jones culpable, although possibly of a slightly lesser charge than Smith, based on the theory that Jones has a duty to the child.
This is one of the reason I'm interested in this topic: I disagree with Rachels's conclusion, but can't articulate why much better than he does in his "response" portion of the article. Part of this goes back to the "rights" theory, in that I don't think in general one human has the right to take another's life without justification. I also think he places the avoidance of suffering in a slightly higher priority on the moral principles scale than I do, as I would expect most doctors to do.
I do like the hypo as a twist on mine, because it removes the morally acceptable motive. The duty notion, however, causes them to diverge at that point. Look forward to more.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Huh. If I were running, I think my thought process would be more like "YEEEEAAAAAHHHHHHHHHHH!"
That's way more coherent than I could manage.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Wow, I didn't know the NEJM let fake doctors play in their sandbox. Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Yes - just what does mind-numbing, soul-chilling terror actually sound like when articulated?
"You're pregnant?"
Sorry, couldn't resist.
As to the running downhill at an angle, I recall a video from the Fox series "When Animals Attack" - a grizzly protecting her cubs covered a pretty respectable distance to close on some idiot who stood by taking photos.
Apparently, he thought he'd still have time to draw his sidearm.
The photos recovered from the camera could be used to decorate Darwin's apartment.
-Trevor
Posted by rubble (Member # 6454) on :
How about this as an alternative.
If A and B run in the same direction B will die and A knows it. By outpacing B A is willingly contributing to the circumstances of B's death.
If B somehow hobbles A and each run in the same direction, B is willingly contributing to the circumstances of A's death. (We've explored how that contribution might be active or even passive (lying psychology etc.)
If B runs in the opposite direction to A, the bear has to make a choice as to which to pursue. It might be that due to B's slower pace the bear is drawn to B, but if they are similar in speed it might be another trait that causes the bear to choose one or the other.
In this third option neither A nor B is contributing to the other's demise. Is this ethically better? Does this violate the scenario?
[ August 17, 2004, 04:15 AM: Message edited by: rubble ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
No matter what A or B does, the action will be viewed to determine the morality and ethical ramifications of the choice(s) made.
Circumstances notwithstanding, those moral and ethical evaluations will be made on several criteria:
Actions taken or not taken
Consequences of those actions
Intent of action or failure to act
The audience watching and judging
Moving through the progression, once we establish the circumstances regarding the scenario, the judgement of morality and ethical nature of the decisions made and actions taken will be determined by the perceptions of the audience which will likely vary depending on the strength of the shared ethical consideration.
An example of the differing moral and ethical evaluations to similar actions based on the audience:
Everyone will probably agree that raping and murdering a child is wrong.
It is possible that not everyone will agree that killing the man who raped and murdered a child is wrong.
It is likely that not everyone will agree that any and all killing is wrong.
-Trevor
Edit: For UBB code and clarity of example
[ August 17, 2004, 08:12 AM: Message edited by: TMedina ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
I don't really care about the outcome so much as the intentions of the agents involved.
I oppose lethal injection for capital punishment as much as for euthanizing. Why don't we just invoke the euphemisms we use for animals, like "put down" if we want to call a spade a spade?
P.S. We could also use "execute" or the term from animal research, "sacrifice". I'm sure that's what the Little Lost Angel people were trying to articulate.
[ August 17, 2004, 11:21 AM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by TMedina (Member # 6649) on :
Because people aren't animals and shouldn't be referred to in the same context?
Not that I agree with that statement, but I'm willing to believe the thought or one quite similar went through someone's head.
-Trevor
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
The presumption that another's death would be preferable than suffering is assumed in the case of an animal. How else can you explain that thinking being applied to an infant with Down's Syndrome or a Coma victim? In the end, it isn't the suffering of the other that is being judged, but the suffering of the caretaker.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around deciding the most humane way to murder a child because they have Down Syndrome. I realize the point the hypothetical is trying to make, and in some ways the distinction is important, but I can't short circuit my abhorance for the concept.
Basically, it's like comparing infinity and infinity+10. The difference is too small for me to consider relevant.
Dagonee
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:There are circumstances in which physical pain can be excruciating and essentially unalleviable, (although such cases are more rare than one might think given their ubiquity in bioethics hypotheticals). Note, though, that these cases shouldn't be conflated with those of persons with Down syndrome or those simply in a coma. They aren't even in the same city, much less the same ballpark.
See, that first remark is the one that fascinates me. Bioethics seems to focus all too often on using the exceptional and extraordiary to make a case for what kinds of policies should exist (remind me to tell you about a few thoughts I had that built on the "speed limit" analogy I used a few weeks ago. )
I don't think the conflation is limited to people in the public. There are plenty of ethicists out there making the case that the withholding of nutrition and hydration from someone with massive organ failure is the same thing as withholding those things from people in a coma or in a vegetative state.
(Snark alert - been a bad day, as evidenced by my Jerry Lewis posting. Also had a very unpleasant conversation with a prolife person who tried to lecture me on the value of believing in God - before the conversation was over, I had given her an honest an blunt appraisal of certain Catholic ethicists and also Randall Terry, founder of Operation Rescue.)
The animal thing is also a real confounding item in people's thinking, I believe. The simple fact is that we kill our pets - first and foremost - because we can. The law doesn't care why we do it, as long as we do it humanely.
Statistics are hard to find, but a few years ago, colleagues of mine gathered statistics on pet euthanasia in Canada. Only a small percentage of pet killings were because animals were incurably ill and in pain. Most were killed because they were too expensive too treat, didn't fit in with the owners' lifestyle any more, or were peeing on the rug. A few months ago, I received a PR announcement from a deodorizer product announcing it was a solution to the "leading cause of pet euthanasia" - it deodorized urine stains.
That's not the picture we get from what we hear from the people we know, though. There are no studies to point to, but a likely explanation is that people are embarrassed to admit they had an animal companion of 10+ years "put down" because she was pissing on the rug. (this doesn't mean the choice was easy or even callous) It's very easy to tell friends that Fluffy had to be "put to sleep" to save her from suffering. After awhile you might even believe it.
In the meantime, though, there's a mythology about what a "kindness" pet euthanasia is - and it's used pretty often to advance the cause of making it easier to do the same with humans.
(feel free to ignore rant - it is so not a good day)
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
Been thinking more on it, and the big difference between the kill/let die distinction in the article and the original bear hypo is intent (which is different VERY from motive).
The intent with the kid in the bathtub and the Down Syndrome child is that the victim die, whichever way it is done. The intent in the bear scenario is that A survive. Now, A's survival is contingent on B dying, since if B weren't there then A would die.
That's why the B kicking A is not analogous to watching the kid drown or withholding treatment. B's intent is to live, not that A die. But I still find B's action to be immoral; maybe it's the intervening act. The intent of A is to live; to do so A runs. The intent of B is to live, but in the interim he intends to cripple A, which is immoral without the bear in the equation.
Is this a useful line of reasoning to pursue, or am I kidding myself?
Dagonee Edit: And I've decided I like the article for 2 reasons. First, the article doesn not advocate euthanesia. Second, it's useful to establish the equivalence between letting a child die and actually killing it, and can serve as an argument against letting a child die.
[ August 17, 2004, 06:50 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
This is excellent. My take on each scenario:
A and B run in terror. The bear by chance catches B first, who dies a horrible death. A escapes. A and B acted morally.
A and B run in terror. By accident their feet tangle, and B trips. The bear catches B, who dies a horrible death. A escapes. A and B acted morally.
A intends to save B by trying to draw the bear’s attention to himself. This works and A dies a horrible death. B escapes and names his first child after A. A acted nobly and B acted morally.
A intends to save B by trying to draw the bear’s attention to himself. But his knowledge of bear behavior is faulty and the bear rushes ever faster toward B, who might have survived otherwise. B dies a horrible death due to A’s mistake. A acted nobly and B acted morally. Legally he may be liable for negligence or recklessness (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B and flees. B dies a horrible death. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B and flees. B recovers from the fall and also flees. Both survive, but never speak again. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of attempted murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He trips B who by chance hits head on a rock and dies instantly. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He shoots B to provide the bear with a distracting snack. The bear ignores the dead body of B since it only wanted to scare them away anyway. A then claims it was justified because B was evil and had it coming anyway. A acted immorally and B acted morally. Legally, A is guilty of murder unless a justification defense is proven (unlikely).
Dagonee
[ August 17, 2004, 06:59 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
quote: A intends to save himself by sacrificing B. He shoots B to provide the bear with a distracting snack. The bear ignores the dead body of B since it only wanted to scare them away anyway. A then claims it was justified because B was evil and had it coming anyway.
You know I thought of this a while back (in the thread) and realized that if A had a gun, he should probably shoot the bear.
CT- when my grandma was burned over 70% of her body (camper propane tank exploded), she kept begging someone to kill her. But even after she "recovered" and had persistent burning sensations in her fingers and hands (for 18 more years) she never killed herself. Was she sincere about wishing someone else would kill her? Of course. But did she actually take that action as soon as she could? I'm not sure why, but she didn't. I imagine she felt "mercy killing" is not as wrong as suicide.
Why did you bring this example up, if my statement was already excessively conflated? I thought it was pretty clear that situations where assisted suicide are thought understandable by the lay public involve the depersonification of the victim. They are a vegetable.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:Dagonee, the issue you raise ("I'm having trouble trying to wrap my head around deciding the most humane way to murder a child because they have Down Syndrome") is not relevant to Rachels' central thesis. His central point has nothing to do with whether or not the child should be killed, but rather explicating logical implications of what is already being done.
I know - did you see my edit two posts up yet, or did we overlap in posting. I guess I started at the idea that one is wrong, for reasons I've fully analyzed and explained for myself, so I'm already treating them as moral equivalents. I do realize he never advocated it.
Dagonee
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote: I thought it was pretty clear that situations where assisted suicide are thought understandable by the lay public involve the depersonification of the victim. They are a vegetable.
Actually, if someone is a "vegetable" (a term I hate edit - and I know you used it to examplify the depersonalization), then it can't be assisted suicide.
Dagonee
[ August 17, 2004, 07:06 PM: Message edited by: Dagonee ]
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Okay, CT, I think I understand what you are trying to say. I guess the perspective of a medical professional is going to be necessarily different from the lay public. Once you have undertaken a course of passive euthanasia, you can't really go back. Like once a fetus is deemed unwanted, it can't be a patient. (here I go conflating again).
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
So I guess the question becomes more whether if euthanasia is disallowed, when does refusal of care become neglect and potentially passive euthanasia?
P.S. While Dagonee's original scenario is interesting, it doesn't really apply to the ideal of a medical professional treating a patient.
A woman deciding to have an abortion is not a medical professional.
Given the politics of abortion, I don't think doctors are in a place of recommending abortion as a necessary course of action. Unless you come back to my anecdote about my niece with the Down's Syndrome.
[ August 17, 2004, 07:13 PM: Message edited by: pooka ]
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
Eh, I don't have anything intelligent to say, I just hold the opinion that if it is moral to abort a child because it is known to have a disease, then it should be moral to kill a child for the same reason. Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
Think I might follow CT's lead, but for different reasons. I'm feeling like I'm not in a very good place right now to do much more fluff. Today has been very much a "pox on both their houses" day.
<insert black cloud smilie>
Posted by sndrake (Member # 4941) on :
quote:Eh, I don't have anything intelligent to say, I just hold the opinion that if it is moral to abort a child because it is known to have a disease, then it should be moral to kill a child for the same reason.
(breaking my previous resolve)
bev,
I'm not sure where you were going with this, but the position you articulated is pretty close to that of Peter Singer, a rather infamous bioethicist. He advocates legalizing the killing of infants with disabilities, as long as that is what the parents want. He has an alarming number of supporters.
Posted by beverly (Member # 6246) on :
My point is not that it is moral to kill children but that it is immoral to abort fetuses and the double-standard sickens me.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
yes, but both involve a deliberate choice.
I guess I finally understand what the original argument was. Whether it is wrong to allow so many embryos to die versus allowing many to be aborted.
But just because half of the elderly who sustain a hip fracture die within six months doesn't mean we should put down all the elderly who sustain a hip fracture. My Grandpa died within three months. My Grandma lived nearly two years and had technically recovered from that (same Grandma with the burns).
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I guess I finally understand what the original argument was. Whether it is wrong to allow so many embryos to die versus allowing many to be aborted.
Actually, the original post really isn't an argument. I'm trying to come to grips with why a death is more wrong when caused purposely than when caused indirectly. But you're correct about what part of the abortion issue this was inspired by.
And your comments about the condoms helped me broaden the principle involved.
This is really an explatory exercise. So far, no one has posted anything that makes me change my mind that A running is moral, and B kicking is immoral, nor do I expect them to. But everyone has helped me come closer to articulating why.
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[ROFL]](graemlins/rofl.gif)
at both of you.![[No No]](graemlins/nono.gif)
![[Laugh]](graemlins/laugh.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)