(no subject)

[jackofallgeeks]

If Ethics is your thing (I'm thinking notably of Daniel and Nifer), I'd be facinated to know what your thoughts on These are.

Comments

[nif.livejournal.com]

Ok, well I'll go through them one by one. I'm not going to go into elaborate reasoning in this comment, I'll just answer the questions relatively concisely.
1. Uh, totally not guilty? I don't care if it legally falls under the technical definition of murder, he's not guilty.
2. In theory, I would do it. Not because I care about the other innocent person. I would want to be the one to kill my son, not some sadistic guard if there was no other option.
3. Yeah, I think I'd choose. The really sucky part would be never knowing if the one survived anyway.
4. Ok, why is the cave going to fill with water if a big fat man is stuck in the opening? I personally believe that he would create a plug. So it's his call-- dynamite or drowning? Either way, I'm getting out of the cave at some point.
5. This one is trickier. Idealistically, I would try to save the worker. Realistically, I don't know if that would be possible. Of course it wasn't a mistake to begin the tunnel.
6. Oh hell no. The vagabond can feel free to pay for my crimes.
7. He shouldn't have a legal obligation, but perhaps he should feel a moral one. Just.. don't be a dick, dude.
8. No way, totally not just. In fact, I would probably have done the same thing.
9. Yeah it's just as bad. The means of killing someone does not change the morality of the end. The second guy had the intent to kill his wife. He's still a killer.
10. Oh yeah, I totally support torture as a valid method of gaining information. Torture for its own sake is wrong, but as long as it has a point (especially saving others) then sure thing. Ok, so his wife is innocent, but shit happens.
11. Um, there IS a law.
12. How badly would it affect his job if his friend screws up? If it won't, then go right ahead and hire him. That's the way the world works.
13. He's the President. He can be hypocritical if he wants. You know why? Because he is the commander in chief and the nation's top politician. He's still supporting sexual harrassment law for everybody else. At least it isn't genocide.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I have to run to get ready, but after reading the first few... bottom line is, they seem to be mongering a distinction between killing and letting die. I don't think there is, in general, such a distinction (cases in which the killing/letting die distinction is apparently important are, I think, really cases where some other attribute is attached to the killing option - greater certainty, lower cost of avoiding the death, etc.).

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

Ask me for my reasoning if you want it:

1. Not guilty.
2. Pull the chair.
3. She did the right thing to choose.
4. They should try their damned hardest to get the fat man unstuck.
5. Try to save the worker. The tunnel wasn't a mistake.
6. Jean Valjean did the right thing.
7. Moral obligation, yes. Legal, no.
8. Unjust.
9. Joe's as guilty as Tom.
10. Torturing the madman could be justified. His innocent wife is not to be touched.
11. There should not be such a law.
12. Jim was right.
13. I should testify.
14. No one is above the law.

[dikaiosunh.livejournal.com]

I'm not going to go through these one by one, but rather give some general comments.

I stand by my skepticism of the killing/letting-die distinction. Nonetheless, that doesn't mean that you should always save the greatest number or some such utilitarian principle. To get all technical, I think human lives are incommensurable goods. That is, while the morality of your action should be judged in terms of its consequences for human lives (and not whether those consequences are "direct" or not), you can't just add and subtract lives.

This has a couple implications, I think. First, Sophie's choice is a moral dilemma, but not for the reasons most folks tend to say it is. Of *course* she should choose one child rather than letting both die. But the choice between her children is a tragic one - it's a choice between two incomparable goods, and so something irreplaceable is lost either way. Either choice is one for which good reasons could be given, but against which strong reasons could also be given. As a result, I think the mother's regret is perfectly appropriate, though not necessarily *guilt* - she took the only morally apporpriate course, yet also committed a grave moral transgression. Unfortunately, morality is sometimes like that - cf Antigone, though that was an interpersonal clash of values, rather than an intrapersonal one.

At least, if you accept plural incommensurable values (as I do). I think anyone who tries to tell you that there's a neat way of reconciling truth and beauty, or justice and compassion, etc. is selling you a bill of goods.

It also has implications for the impartiality question. Friendship, love, etc. are perfectly respectable values that I can put in the mix with other values. In the case at hand, I think fairness should probably prevail, but that's not always going to be the case. In more serious cases, this might also generate moral tragedies - if I have to choose to save my friend or ten others, I may be able both to morally choose either yet be morally criticizable for choosing either. Taurek's classic "Should the Numbers Count?" is pretty good on some of these issues, though he doesn't feel the force of the tragedy.

On a different note, it pays not to conflate morality and law. If I could save a drowning man at minimal cost to myself, I'm not just a dick for not doing so, I'm evil to almost the same degree as if I'd pushed him in (depends on how minimal the cost of saving him is). But whether there should be a good samaritan *law* is a semi-empirical question: will the law actually encourage good samaritan behavior while not imposing too much of a cost on society at large or people who get accidentally caught by it, can we write the law such that it correctly identifies when such behavior is or is not required, etc... (this rant applies also to debates over parental- and spousal-notification laws for contraception and abortion, but that's a whole 'nother discussion)

[bsgnome.livejournal.com]

So, I've been asked for some reasoning:

1. I said above "not guilty." I'm not sure if I can really hold to that answer. But, I'm not sure if I could hold to the answer of guilty either. On the one hand, were nothing done, everyone would have died, and he would be responsible for those deaths, by his inaction, since something could have been done. The lifeboat was designed for 7 (if I recall correctly), yet they overloaded it. Due to the storm, under such conditions, the lifeboat could not have done anyone good. The solution was to lighten the load (unfortunately, this load consists entirely of people). On the other, he did directly force innocent people into the ocean. Now, I believe that the man was right in deciding that it would be better to save some, than to save none; however, I cannot agree with his decision to force the weak off. It may be true that the only hope for survival was in hard-rowing, but, on the same count, it is also true that the strongest have the best chance for survival sans boat (addmittedly, even for them, such a chance is near non-existent). The best option, I believe, would have been for him to inform everyone of the exact situation, and either have people voluntarily abandon, or draw lots. In this way, the chance for survival, of each, is the same, and none are automatically condemned for being of "less use."

2. I said "pull the chair." On the one hand, I am making myself an instrumental cause of my sons death. On the other hand, by doing so, I am possibly saving another man's life. Now, I don't see myself as weighing lives in this situation, since I know that, regardless, my son will die. If I choose to be my son's executioner, the innocent man may live; otherwise, the innocent man will die. Either way, my son dies. Now, as to whether I'd be as blameless as an executioner, I'm not sure; that falls under the question of authority, and jurisdiction, et cetera and what not. These, I'm not prepared to deal with.

3. She did the right thing to choose. That's that. Now, as to her "guilt" and subsequent suicide. I don't know if suicide can be morally justified, and I don't want to wrestle with that. If she truly felt guilty, what does that mean, did she think it'd've been better had she not chosen at all, and allowed for both of her children to die? If so, she should not have felt guilty, for her choice to choose was correct. Did she think it'd've been better had she chosen her daughter to live? That's entirely "what if" thinking, it never helps anything; besides, there was no "right" choice between son and daughter--you can't weigh lives. If neither of the above, then what she felt was not guilt, or regret, but mere remorse for having been forced to make such a choice.

4. There's no way around it, they can't use the dynamite without directly killing the fat man, so they can't use the dynamite. It's irrelevant that high tide will be coming soon. As said, the fat man got stuck, so he can get unstuck.

5. This is an avoidable death. Whenever possible, death should be avoided. This death should be avoided. The financial/sconomic cost is irrelevant. The tunnel was not a mistake, even though it was known that a number of deaths would be likely in its construction, because of the benefit it serves to the community. Though recognized as likely, the deaths are certainly not intended.

6. Unlike the others, this is not a matter of life, but of truth and justice. It would not only be deceitful of Valjean to let an innocent man pay for his crime, it would be unjust. As to whether or not the punishment is just is irrelevant to this question, it is not Valjean's place to decide, by inaction, that an innocent man will take his place. As to whether or not people working in his factory will suffer due to his imprisonment is also irrelevant. He committed the crime, so he should admit to it, and pay the price.

Continued ...