Moral Dilemma's. How do you handle them?

[Juanita]

And here it goes. We're looking for consistency here. Mr. Invisible's morality is inconsistent. It's whimsical. If it were indeed consistent then it should hold up under every condition. So the question is what is that kind of morality based on? His true instinct is to free the child, and I suspect it's because he feels that the child's individual rights matter. But in the second instance he is opting to take the Utilitarian position of doing what's in the interest of the greater number. Save the five at the expense of the one. Does the kids rights matter any less under these circumstances? Why should the kids rights have any less meaning because in one case it's kept in a dungeon, and in the other it's walking on the tracks? Are rights dependent on such things?

The two cases have different consequences, so are two different moral issues....In the one case five people die instantly; in the other case to save the child means a loss of quality of life and not loss of life...

 

[Fisher]

And here it goes. We're looking for consistency here. Mr. Invisible's morality is inconsistent. It's whimsical. If it were indeed consistent then it should hold up under every condition. So the question is what is that kind of morality based on? His true instinct is to free the child, and I suspect it's because he feels that the child's individual rights matter. But in the second instance he is opting to take the Utilitarian position of doing what's in the interest of the greater number. Save the five at the expense of the one. Does the kids rights matter any less under these circumstances? Why should the kids rights have any less meaning because in one case it's kept in a dungeon, and in the other it's walking on the tracks? Are rights dependent on such things?

I think your analysis is faulty. Liberty can be used or not used in a whimsical manner. I doubt you could find anyone who would be 100% consistent under every conceivable scenario. Both hypotheticals go to the same question as far as I am concerned--do you have a moral duty to intervene in the lives of others. I say there is no such moral duty. To the extent that one elects to intervene, they are free to do so however they so desire.

 

[Adagio]

Then you should have added the "to YOU" to your OP.

It would not be morally acceptable to put the child under the building, but I have no moral duty to save him/her.

As for the train, I would stay on the track I was supposed to be on. Since that appears to be the one that takes out the 5, then that is what I would do. Staying on the track the train is supposed to be on makes the deaths the fault of the brakes. Going onto the track I am not supposed to be on makes the death my fault.

Most people seem to understand that it's a question being asked of them

Staying on the track the train is supposed to be on makes the deaths the fault of the brakes. Going onto the track I am not supposed to be on makes the death my fault.

Good point. If the train kills the 5 it's due to the brakes failing. If you can turn onto another track and know that you'll kill the kid, your imposing an active will on the outcome.

On the first part, you say that keeping the kid in the dungeon is morally wrong, but you're under no moral obligation to free him. Why not? If you find that holding him in this way is morally wrong, then how are you not complicit in that immoral act? If you are consistent with your moral values, should you not make the effort to free him/her? Isn't it a bit like saying that you may have been a German citizen living in Dachau but had no moral duty to address what was going on inside the walls? How are you OR the citizens of Dachau not morally complicit for what is going on with your knowledge?

 

[Sarcogito]

Moral Dilemma #2.


You're driving a train. Suddenly you have no brakes. Up ahead you see 5 workman on the tracks. The Whistle doesn't work. The only thing you can do is steer slightly. As you look, you can also see a side track which you could steer onto, but there is a person on that track as well. You have a decision that you must make now. Do you veer off to the side track knowing that you'll kill one person instead of 5? Or do you stay the course and kill the 5 workmen, saving the one?

If you're a utilitarian you would do what's in the best interests of the greatest number. You maximize pleasure over pain. There is more utility in taking out the one in order to save the five. So that is the morally correct decision.


Now...suppose the person on the side track is an 8 year old boy? Do you still take him out to save the greatest number? Does it matter who he is or how old he is? Morally speaking, isn't it better to save 5 over 1? If you are morally consistent with the idea that you save the most people, even if you have to sacrifice one life, then you kill the kid.

Some people hate these kind of thought experiments but I enjoy them (and take comfort in the fact it is highly unlikely I will encounter such scenarios in real life).

If I were driving that train I would steer the train to hit the one person rather than hit the five people. If the one person was a child I would not change course, however. I don’t really have a good explanation other than it is what my “gut” would tell me to do or not do. I value a child’s life more than an adult’s, even several adults.

 

[Adagio]

Of course not--release the child and let the chips fall where they may......

Individual rights matter. What about the train situation?

 

[Fisher]

Most people seem to understand that it's a question being asked of them



Good point. If the train kills the 5 it's due to the brakes failing. If you can turn onto another track and know that you'll kill the kid, your imposing an active will on the outcome.

On the first part, you say that keeping the kid in the dungeon is morally wrong, but you're under no moral obligation to free him. Why not? If you find that holding him in this way is morally wrong, then how are you not complicit in that immoral act? If you are consistent with your moral values, should you not make the effort to free him/her? Isn't it a bit like saying that you may have been a German citizen living in Dachau but had no moral duty to address what was going on inside the walls? How are you OR the citizens of Dachau not morally complicit for what is going on with your knowledge?

I did not say keeping the kid in the dungeon is morally wrong--I implied putting him there is.

 

[Henrin]

Moral Dilemma #1 - This example is really perfect to express the difference between the two ways of thinking. A collectivist will decide that its best to keep him locked up even if it is against his will as his sacrifice will help the group to prosper while an individualist like myself will decide that the individual is more important than the needs of the group and will decide to free him from his imprisonment.

Moral Dilemma #2 - The kid. I must say I don't think these two examples are comparable. The first choice you are dealing with an individual where his liberty was robbed from him for the betterment of the group and in the later you have to decide on how many you are going to kill. In the later example no matter what the choice you decide on someone will die, so it's simply a matter of how many people you are willing to kill given the choice between the two. Considering the fact that I don't want to kill anyone and yet I find myself in a situation where I must kill at least one person, I have to pick the choice that offers me the least amount of lives lost.

 

[Adagio]

Yes, unfortunately, you kill the kid.....

Ok...you're being consistent. I assume you would keep the kid in the Dungeon as well??

 

[Adagio]

The two cases have different consequences, so are two different moral issues....In the one case five people die instantly; in the other case to save the child means a loss of quality of life and not loss of life...

I think that a distinction that's worth making. So you would free the kid in the dungeon and run down the kid on the tracks. Save 5 at the cost of one kid on one hand. Save one kid at the cost of the quality of life on the other. Ok.

 

[Adagio]

I think your analysis is faulty. Liberty can be used or not used in a whimsical manner. I doubt you could find anyone who would be 100% consistent under every conceivable scenario. Both hypotheticals go to the same question as far as I am concerned--do you have a moral duty to intervene in the lives of others. I say there is no such moral duty. To the extent that one elects to intervene, they are free to do so however they so desire.

Do you not think that a decision to intervene IS a moral decision that is being made? When a man jumps on top of a grenade to save his friends at the expense of his own life, isn't he making a moral decision? Nobody would suggest that he has a moral duty to jump on the grenade. Bit His decision to do it would be a moral decision.

 

[Fisher]

Do you not think that a decision to intervene IS a moral decision that is being made? When a man jumps on top of a grenade to save his friends at the expense of his own life, isn't he making a moral decision? Nobody would suggest that he has a moral duty to jump on the grenade. Bit His decision to do it would be a moral decision.

Maybe, maybe not. You begged the question by assuming he jumped on it to save friends. He may jump on it as an act of suicide or an act of training reflex that has no individual moral aspect to it whatsoever. That said, if his action saves then his inaction would have cost him his own life anyway so there is no upside to not jumping on the grenade.

 

[Adagio]

Some people hate these kind of thought experiments but I enjoy them (and take comfort in the fact it is highly unlikely I will encounter such scenarios in real life).

If I were driving that train I would steer the train to hit the one person rather than hit the five people. If the one person was a child I would not change course, however. I don’t really have a good explanation other than it is what my “gut” would tell me to do or not do. I value a child’s life more than an adult’s, even several adults.

Well if you'd save the child then you seem to be saying that he has more value than the 5 workers. But if the person on the side track is not a child, then he's going down. Do you find a moral difference here and have you asked yourself why it matters? You've adopted the Utilitarian view on saving the five against the one. But you change that when you know that the one is a child. Where is your morality grounded? Does it have a basis or is it just whimsical ? How do we avoid hypocrisy if our morality is merely situational?

 

[Adagio]

I did not say keeping the kid in the dungeon is morally wrong--I implied putting him there is.

Well that really doesn't matter. He's there. And you know he's there. Is that morally acceptable or not? If not, then would you not find yourself compelled to say something about it to secure his release?

 

[Sarcogito]

Well if you'd save the child then you seem to be saying that he has more value than the 5 workers. But if the person on the side track is not a child, then he's going down. Do you find a moral difference here and have you asked yourself why it matters? You've adopted the Utilitarian view on saving the five against the one. But you change that when you know that the one is a child. Where is your morality grounded? Does it have a basis or is it just whimsical ? How do we avoid hypocrisy if our morality is merely situational?

I guess it is a value judgment. And my values are a product of my raising and life experiences. I mean, if I were purely utilitarian I would probably place less value on the child’s life. After all, he doesn’t have a job, he doesn’t have a family to support, he doesn’t contribute to society yet, other than making his parents happy. Whereas the five adults I allowed to die in his place may have children of their own to take care of, and now society will likely have to take up the slack in seeing they are provided for. They are likely tax payers with jobs. Hell, they may even be doctors who save lives.

But in the end there is a selfish aspect to it. I would FEEL worse allowing the child to die. It would be more difficult for me to live with myself if I allowed the child to die. I could say the child hasn’t had a chance to truly live life yet, but that is just an attempt to rationalize my decision. Values are wired into us fairly deeply and they aren’t always grounded in logic. But recognizing that, I wouldn’t condemn a person who made the opposite decision.

 

[Fisher]

Well that really doesn't matter. He's there. And you know he's there. Is that morally acceptable or not? If not, then would you not find yourself compelled to say something about it to secure his release?

And you are wrong because it does matter. I have no moral duty to take an affirmative action to suffer a consequence to benefit another ergo I have no moral duty to secure his release be it by saying something or storming the location. If anything, my duty is to not cause the suffering by my affirmative acts. If I did not put the child there, someone else caused his/her suffering in placing them there, not me.

 

[Adagio]

Moral Dilemma #1 - This example is really perfect to express the difference between the two ways of thinking. A collectivist will decide that its best to keep him locked up even if it is against his will as his sacrifice will help the group to prosper while an individualist like myself will decide that the individual is more important than the needs of the group and will decide to free him from his imprisonment.

Moral Dilemma #2 - The kid. I must say I don't think these two examples are comparable. The first choice you are dealing with an individual where his liberty was robbed from him for the betterment of the group and in the later you have to decide on how many you are going to kill. In the later example no matter what the choice you decide on someone will die, so it's simply a matter of how many people you are willing to kill given the choice between the two. Considering the fact that I don't want to kill anyone and yet I find myself in a situation where I must kill at least one person, I have to pick the choice that offers me the least amount of lives lost.

For starters, they aren't supposed to be comparable. They're different situations, but they do have a common theme and that's how morality plays into how they're dealt with.
You mention "collectivists" would keep the kid in the dungeon",. Actually Utilitarians would keep him there. You are right that keeping him there would deny his individual rights.

In the later example no matter what the choice you decide on someone will die, so it's simply a matter of how many people you are willing to kill given the choice between the two. Considering the fact that I don't want to kill anyone and yet I find myself in a situation where I must kill at least one person, I have to pick the choice that offers me the least amount of lives lost.

Ok...I understand the reluctance to have to make that kind of call, but you clearly feel that what saves the most is best even if it means the sacrifice of one child. But you are willing to sacrifice the town in order to save the one kid in the dungeon. You said this, "the individual is more important than the needs of the group and will decide to free him from his imprisonment. Why is the life of the one kid on the tracks now less valued than the kid in the dungeon? You seem to be willing to sacrifice the town for the sake of one boy, while you wont' sacrifice 5 workers to save one boy.

 

[Adagio]

And you are wrong because it does matter. I have no moral duty to take an affirmative action to suffer a consequence to benefit another ergo I have no moral duty to secure his release be it by saying something or storming the location. If anything, my duty is to not cause the suffering by my affirmative acts. If I did not put the child there, someone else caused his/her suffering in placing them there, not me.

Then you would be in sympathy with the people of Dachau that they have no moral complicity in what went on at the camp behind the walls? They didn't put the Jews there so they are not the cause of the suffering. Even knowing what was happening, there is no moral complicity? You may have not put the child in the dungeon, but you directly benefit from his being there, as does the entire town. The child suffers so that you live a beautiful life. You owe that child for the good life that you have. Yet you feel no moral responsibility for his condition? I would assume then, that individual rights is not high on your list?

 

[Fisher]

Then you would be in sympathy with the people of Dachau that they have no moral complicity in what went on at the camp behind the walls? They didn't put the Jews there so they are not the cause of the suffering. Even knowing what was happening, there is no moral complicity? You may have not put the child in the dungeon, but you directly benefit from his being there, as does the entire town. The child suffers so that you live a beautiful life. You owe that child for the good life that you have. Yet you feel no moral responsibility for his condition? I would assume then, that individual rights is not high on your list?

No, I do not believe that people had "moral complicity" in what the Nazis were doing just by virtue of knowing what they were doing. Everybody has to draw the line somewhere. If your implicit argument that people have a duty to to alleviate the suffering of others is your real position, then why are you posting on DP right now instead of digging a well in Africa, or tending to dying children or liberating slaves somewhere or battling drug dealer in the inner city?

 

[Adagio]

Moral Dilemma #3.

The ticking time bomb.

You all know the scenario. We capture a suspected terrorist. We know about a bomb that is going to go off and kill hundreds or maybe even thousands of innocent people. Do we claim that torture is justified if it means saving lives. If we do, then do we torture the suspected terrorist to prevent the bomb from going off?

We are saying that it's ok to torture a person if it means that it will save hundreds or thousands of lives.

Ok. If that's true...then what difference does it make who gets tortured as long as we can act in time to stop the bomb and save those lives.

Suppose instead of torturing the suspect, we also grab his 7 year old daughter. We tell the suspect that we will remove her fingers one at a time unless he talks.

If using torture in order to prevent a bomb from killing people is justified, then why does it make any difference who gets tortured as long as the bomb is stopped from going off? Would it be acceptable to torture the little girl if it means that it would save hundreds or thousands of lives? Her innocence doesn't matter here. What matters is a basic question of sacrificing one person to save hundreds, and if torturing her accomplishes that task, is it not justifiable.

 

[SmokeAndMirrors]

I agree with you. Whether the child knows it's there really doesn't matter. As a Libertarian I can see that individual rights matter most to you. The situation tests the Utilitarian claim of consequential morality ( what serves the greatest good for the greatest number is the morally correct thing to do) The first objection to Bentham’s utilitarianism, the one that appeals to fundamental human rights, says they are not—even if they lead to a city of happiness - morally acceptable. It would be wrong to violate the rights of the innocent child, even for the sake of the happiness of the multitude.

But herein lies the problem.

To free the child would also bring the violation of rights of many, many more people.

Ultimately, there is no answer which doesn't result in violation of rights. There's only two pertinent factors.

One is emotional. The single child alone in the basement and suffering is more relatable to our minds than a mass of hundreds, thousands, or millions.

The second is intentful. The people of Omelas choose to leave the child there; it's a collective act of will. However, freeing the child and forfeiting the beauty of Omelas would be allowing a passive violation of rights, perhaps by someone other than the one who freed them (or perhaps not -- it isn't entirely clear the degree of depravity Omelas would fall to).

The first factor is an interesting cog of psychology, but it would be wrong to allow it to paint the nature of the dilemma.

The second... how relevant is it, really? How free are you from ethical consequence pushing the button, versus allowing a madman into the room who you know will push the button? To my mind, the degree of ethical difference here is approaching nil.

I have to side with the greater number of people of Omelas, as emotionally painful as that is.

 

[Adagio]

No, I do not believe that people had "moral complicity" in what the Nazis were doing just by virtue of knowing what they were doing. Everybody has to draw the line somewhere. If your implicit argument that people have a duty to to alleviate the suffering of others is your real position, then why are you posting on DP right now instead of digging a well in Africa, or tending to dying children or liberating slaves somewhere or battling drug dealer in the inner city?

I never said that was my implicit argument at all. I'm simply playing devils advocate here. You say that everybody has to draw the line somewhere. That's what this is about. Where is somewhere? Where does one draw that line, and what does he base that imaginary line on? It's arbitrary. And the very notion of drawing a line is a moral decision on your part. So what are you basing your morality on? Also the question of why I'm not in Africa or some other place ignores the fact that I don't live there as I would in the town that benefits from the boys suffering. Knowing that I benefit at the direct expense of the life of a boy who's kept in horrid conditions IS a moral question which can't be overlooked.

 

[Fisher]

Moral Dilemma #3.

The ticking time bomb.

You all know the scenario. We capture a suspected terrorist. We know about a bomb that is going to go off and kill hundreds or maybe even thousands of innocent people. Do we claim that torture is justified if it means saving lives. If we do, then do we torture the suspected terrorist to prevent the bomb from going off?

We are saying that it's ok to torture a person if it means that it will save hundreds or thousands of lives.

Ok. If that's true...then what difference does it make who gets tortured as long as we can act in time to stop the bomb and save those lives.

Suppose instead of torturing the suspect, we also grab his 7 year old daughter. We tell the suspect that we will remove her fingers one at a time unless he talks.

If using torture in order to prevent a bomb from killing people is justified, then why does it make any difference who gets tortured as long as the bomb is stopped from going off? Would it be acceptable to torture the little girl if it means that it would save hundreds or thousands of lives? Her innocence doesn't matter here. What matters is a basic question of sacrificing one person to save hundreds, and if torturing her accomplishes that task, is it not justifiable.

See you are letting your collectivist thinking taint your hypothetical. It shouldn't be "we"-- it should be "you".

 

[Fisher]

I never said that was my implicit argument at all. I'm simply playing devils advocate here. You say that everybody has to draw the line somewhere. That's what this is about. Where is somewhere? Where does one draw that line, and what does he base that imaginary line on? It's arbitrary. And the very notion of drawing a line is a moral decision on your part. So what are you basing your morality on? Also the question of why I'm not in Africa or some other place ignores the fact that I don't live there as I would in the town that benefits from the boys suffering. Knowing that I benefit at the direct expense of the life of a boy who's kept in horrid conditions IS a moral question which can't be overlooked.

So there is no suffering in your town? might want to start searching basements for a kid. he is bound to be there somewhere :mrgreen:

 

[Adagio]

But herein lies the problem.

To free the child would also bring the violation of rights of many, many more people.

Ultimately, there is no answer which doesn't result in violation of rights. There's only two pertinent factors.

One is emotional. The single child alone in the basement and suffering is more relatable to our minds than a mass of hundreds, thousands, or millions.

The second is intentful. The people of Omelas choose to leave the child there; it's a collective act of will. However, freeing the child and forfeiting the beauty of Omelas would be allowing a passive violation of rights, perhaps by someone other than the one who freed them (or perhaps not -- it isn't entirely clear the degree of depravity Omelas would fall to).

The first factor is an interesting cog of psychology, but it would be wrong to allow it to paint the nature of the dilemma.

The second... how relevant is it, really? How free are you from ethical consequence pushing the button, versus allowing a madman into the room who you know will push the button? To my mind, the degree of ethical difference here is approaching nil.

I have to side with the greater number of people of Omelas, as emotionally painful as that is.

That would be the utilitarian viewpoint. Greatest good for the greatest number. I wonder how far people might be willing to take that.

 

[Henrin]

For starters, they aren't supposed to be comparable. They're different situations, but they do have a common theme and that's how morality plays into how they're dealt with.
You mention "collectivists" would keep the kid in the dungeon",. Actually Utilitarians would keep him there. You are right that keeping him there would deny his individual rights.

Both would side with keeping the child imprisoned and for pretty much the same reason.

Ok...I understand the reluctance to have to make that kind of call, but you clearly feel that what saves the most is best even if it means the sacrifice of one child. But you are willing to sacrifice the town in order to save the one kid in the dungeon. You said this, "the individual is more important than the needs of the group and will decide to free him from his imprisonment. Why is the life of the one kid on the tracks now less valued than the kid in the dungeon? You seem to be willing to sacrifice the town for the sake of one boy, while you wont' sacrifice 5 workers to save one boy.

To free the child is to restore his liberty that was robbed from him when he was imprisoned against his will. According to you this would cause the quality of life for the group to be decreased. However, by all accounts since they gained this quality of life by violating the rights of the child through an act of aggression to restore justice the right course of action is to take this increased quality of life from them and restore his liberty. Let's us keep in mind that no one has a right to quality of life and so regardless of my choice here they have no rights in the equation.

In the later example I'm the party forced to be in the position of someone that must take the life of someone else. If I must act on the rights of another person it is paramount I act on as few people as possible.