If you could save the life of two 10 year olds or three 75 year olds...

[trada]

This is a perverse and disturbing question; I don't want any part in answering it or being part of this discussion.

Then why did you bother posting? o_O

 

[Sahkuhnder]

This is a perverse and disturbing question; I don't want any part in answering it or being part of this discussion.

Life can be disturbing sometimes. By not making a choice you are choosing to kill all five by your inaction.

I was under the impression that the bible was a clear moral guidebook. What does it say is the moral action to do in this case?

 

[Kozmos]

Here is how you can profit from this($$$ ching ching). Save the kids, sell one of their kidneys and then sell them as slave labour.

 

[Bartleby]

Kill 'em all, let god sort 'em out.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

If one were in this situation and, under the guise of calling it "sick" or unanswerable, decided that it would be wrong to decide, one would in essence be sayong that everyone deserved to die, 10 years old or 75. That may be the worst possible choice.

 

[IglooDame]

I'd assume they're all Christian and let them decide amongst themselves who should be saved.

 

[Sidhe]

Sometimes life asks us to make choices without having all the information. Often times those are the hardest choices to make.

The OP gives us no information other than age, our reaction isn't logical it's merely a reaction based on societal programming and instinct and not a moral judgement. The choice isn't that hard actually in this case as most people have said the kids. Given a two for three though, morally speaking we are meant to say three lives are better than two, but mostly we don't which is a good example of the difference between what people percieve as a moral action and what a moral action actually is based on pure logic. The answer should be I don't have enough information to make that call, but based on the fact that I am saving 3 lives over two I say the old, but it's rarely that simple.

Given the chance to save your son or ten other unknown people who would you save? All fathers would most likely save their sons, but this is another good example of immorality.

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Given the chance to save your son or ten other unknown people who would you save? All fathers would most likely save their sons, but this is another good example of immorality.

Just ask Michael from Lost . . .

I like to think I would save the 10 strangers. It would be hard and maybe in the event I would be unable to do so, but from here I can say that it would be the right thing to do.

 

[Sidhe]

I'm not sure I'd be strong enough to do the same either, and I have no children. Could you look into your childs eyes and condemn him to death, when the ten strangers are "out of sight", I'm not sure I could do it, and theoretically I'm not sure any father could. It's the right thing to do and I laud your choice, but I'm pretty sure you don't have children, yes? And it's a choice you should only really make as a father, with any real insight anyway. It's a classic example of just how difficult it is to be moral in all situations.

Well I only saw the first episode of lost and I missed the rest much to my dissapointment, by the time I got back into it I had lost the thread of the story so I'm not sure what you're saying but I'd guess Michael agreed with you?

 

[Stile]

Definitely not the right or moral thing to do. As a father you have certain responsibilities to your son or daughter, atleast until they become adults. This responsibility includes protecting them from harm (particularly harm that is not of their own making). Your children come first. You have no equivalent responsibility to the net gain of society or humanity or to anyone else in the world. Even a spouse is secondary as it pertains to protection (a spouse come first in many other areas).

I am assuming of course that saving your child does not directly cause other peoples death, but only prevents you from saving others.

 

[Sidhe]

It does that's the whole point, an official says chose your child or ten other people arbitrarily chosen. Morally speaking you would place the value of one life over ten, be they ten children of other fathers or ten old coots, either way it is morally unconscienable, your taking societal conformity as a basis of morality, you're making your decision based on what society says you should do, not on what the right thing to do is, not a reasoned approach, in fact it's likely based more on emotion, a knee jerk reaction. Do you have children Stile?

 

[Eran of Arcadia]

Well I only saw the first episode of lost and I missed the rest much to my dissapointment, by the time I got back into it I had lost the thread of the story so I'm not sure what you're saying but I'd guess Michael agreed with you?

Actually, Michael rather violently made the opposite choice.

Like I said, it is easy for me to sit here and say what the right choice is. It is quite another to look into my child's eyes (I don't actually have children) and explain that he has to die to save others. I do feel that regardless of my responsibilities as a father the right thing to do is save the others. That is one of the reasons why Christians speak of God's love - in the Christian view God sacrificed His son (Jesus was His son in a way other humans are not) to save us all.

 

[Sidhe]

Ah ok, I see, Michael was wrong, but it's understandable.

You don't need the religous justification to make that point but it is never the less the right choice; God must of known his son would die and that it would a be a pivotal moment in history that should of lead to a real change in the way humanity behaves, he's simply allowing his divine wisdon to play out, even if it takes a million years. I'm not sure you can use God as a rationalisation with the unquestionable knowledge of Gods righteousness, fathers aren't endowed with such clarity, but you can say that's ten less people that can make a difference in the world, as oposed to one, it's more logically consistent than tallying up ages, or making a decision based on belief.

 

[Stile]

It does that's the whole point, an official says chose your child or ten other people arbitrarily chosen. Morally speaking you would place the value of one life over ten, be they ten children of other fathers or ten old coots, either way it is morally unconscienable, your taking societal conformity as a basis of morality, you're making your decision based on what society says you should do, not on what the right thing to do is, not a reasoned approach, in fact it's likely based more on emotion, a knee jerk reaction. Do you have children Stile?

I have two children, ages 2 and 3, thanks for asking. You're conforming to society. In your example the official would be at fault and morally wrong. I didn't create the situation. A situation with direct causation would be if I took my child who had the plague to NY where he could be saved, but by doing so other's died through my actions. Society doesn't say your child comes first. Society says even your job should come first.

 

[Sidhe]

I didn't say why he said that at all, it could well be that it's a perfect action by the official, in that he is merely saying put the baby to death to analyse his brain for the original disease and the new mutation factors, or ten others will die, or kill ten others to find out how disease has affected those ten but not how it came to be so virulent, each way you find a cure, both equally applicable but one involves.... But I like the fact that your questioning the original preposition

 

[Stile]

I didn't say why he said that at all, it could well be that it's a perfect action by the official, in that he is merely saying put the baby to death to analyse his brain for the original disease and the new mutation factors, or ten others will die, or kill ten others to find out how disease has affected those ten but not how it came to be so virulent, each way you find a cure, both equally applicable but one involves.... But I like the fact that your questioning the original preposition

Wow! That's really contrived. How about I can abandon my children to starvation and feed 20 other kids starving in some other country? I could do that except the money I use to feed my children would probably feed 100 in a third world country. It doesn't change that I am responsible for my children's well-being, not some situation affecting someone else.

 

[Sidhe]

Not really it's just your trying to justify your actions, and understandably so, you actually have a child you couldn't give up for the world. That was my point when I posted about Eran's response. Your not wrong at all, in fact your right when it comes to how you would react emotionally, as would most fathers, at least those who care.

But the situation is suposed to be without moral objection on the choice itself just the direct result, 1 or 10, you simply have a choice let one die or let ten die through your direct action. I'm trying and failing to make you understand this. Sorry, but it's a fundemental premise of morality. Can you without emotion make a decision? Can you make the right decision? The one where ten lives are saved, I doubt it but it is morally correct.

 

[The Great Apple]

I like to think I would save the 10 strangers. It would be hard and maybe in the event I would be unable to do so, but from here I can say that it would be the right thing to do.

You have the chance to help save 10 strangers without having to sacrifice your (hypothetical) child - people die because they don't have any money, and there you are sitting at home in a chair with a computer with internet access. If you really wanted to save them you'd sell the computer, the chair, and maybe even your house - I'm pretty sure that money would go a long way in some parts of the world.

Killing strangers is alot easier than you'd think for.

 

[Stegyre]

You have the chance to help save 10 strangers without having to sacrifice your (hypothetical) child - people die because they don't have any money, and there you are sitting at home in a chair with a computer with internet access. If you really wanted to save them you'd sell the computer, the chair, and maybe even your house - I'm pretty sure that money would go a long way in some parts of the world.

Killing strangers is alot easier than you'd think for.

Setting aside the logical and moral fallacy at the end (i.e., failing to sell ones worldly goods to help others is the moral equivalent of killing them), the criticism is only credible coming from someone logging in from a terminal in a public library after his (or her!) volunteer work at the soup kitchen and while on her (or his!) way to the park bench with a blanket.

Apple, you must be a fruit of uncompromising integrity, and I, for one, most humbly salute you! (As established by the following smiley: )

 

[The Great Apple]

Is it really that morally different to the situation where you could choose to sacrifice your son instead of the 10 strangers?

Also... I never claimed that I wasn't guilty too . (BTW - I am logging in on a computer supplied by the university I am at. It isn't in the library, but I could move over there if you wanted me too )