Morality test.

[dh_epic]

dh_epic, are you religious?
Why do you think it's wrong to kill more foreigners to save more of your own civilians?
Why do people accept utilitarianism? How do you prove that all lives are worth a set value, and that it is acceptable to kill some to save others?
As I've pointed out in a different thread, would you then willingly die to save the life of one man, who has more productivity ahead of him than you do? Would you die so that everyone in the country had 10p more a year? That's a huge increase in the greater good.

I'm not religious. And as much as I love my country, I can't say I would kill X amount of foreigners to save the lives of X-Y citizens (unless those foreigners were combatants or leaders of combatants in some way).

I'm no expert on utilitarianism... but you can't oversimplify utilitarianism as simply "the greater good". There's one principle called the assymetry between pleasure and pain. That is, inflicting "10 units of pain" on someone is not simply cancelled out by "10 units of pleasure" for someone else.

Also, I doubt any utilitarians are exclusively focusing on utility. I imagine a lot of utilitarians have another principle such as "the only appropriate time to kill is to prevent a killing". So for that, you wouldn't kill one person to improve someone else's wealth... but you MIGHT kill one person if it meant saving someone else's life.

I imagine there were even some Gandhi types in the poll, who criticized utilitarianism for being incomplete, at best. "I do not believe in the doctrine of the greatest good of the greatest number. The only real, dignified, human doctrine is the greatest good of all." I'm not saying I agree with it, but it's an interesting thought.

As the head of your country you have accepted a duty to protect your citizens. You have no duty to care for other humans until you accept such a duty by being part of an international treaty to that effect.

I personally voted that I WOULD kill some foreigners, but not too many, to protect my own citizens. But I think that a nation is an artificial construction -- the borders are created from human minds. So as much as I show loyalty to my nation, I think we are all obligated to a higher duty. That is, the defense of humanity.

I do see the morality in defending your nation. But when you put it ahead of humanity as a whole, I see that as 100% immoral.

 

[JoeM]

How big would the town have to be before you say "I can't morally kill that many innocent foreigners in order to save 3000 lives in my country"? How big would the town have to be before you say "we'll just wait until after the attack, and nail them then?"

This quandary is probably one of the reasons God said "Thou shalt not kill". The only solution to the problem is not to kill anyone.

As a Christian
Having said that, it's not a solution that I can yet accept. In fact I believe it is akin to the concept of temptation by the devil; by believing you have a chance to do good you are tricked into sinning.
How can it ever be right to kill someone, someone you don't even know?

As a British citizen
I believe all people are equal, I don't believe foreign citizens have any less value, but the arguement holds the same quandary in Iraq; is it right to invade causing X many deaths in order to save the hundreds of thousands we know will die under the current regime?
How can you weigh up unknown probable deaths against certain deaths?


In short; by taking a stance that any innocent death is worth causing for any reason creates so many other moral quandaries, that it can't be the right solution...but I still struggle to accept this.

 

[Sidhe]

Let's muddy the waters, Saddam would die eventually(or be assasinated) He was cruising for that, would that happening cause less death than a bunch of Jar heads shooting up the place? And incompetently inciting hatred against themselves after the war was over. Also would it have more far reaching implications for the Middle East, than kicking bees nests. Simple espousal of Iraq as a good solution is not so easy. Nor is saying it is bad, although I do, well you gotta make up your mind some time.

 

[JoeM]

Simple espousal of Iraq as a good solution is not so easy. Nor is saying it is bad, although I do, well you gotta make up your mind some time.

Nice to see you've a clear stance

 

[Azash]

This is mostly the way I was thinking when I put in my vote for the second option. It's really a roundabout way of saying -- do you consider all human life equal?

But I also wanted people to think long term. So yes, I wanted them to think about the diplomatic fall out as much as I wanted them to think about what kind of message this sends to terrorists around the world. Which are they more concerned with?



See above. This poll IS designed to make you ask the question "do I value my own citizens more than foreign citizens?"

You can definitely confound the poll. In fact, I'd welcome people to launch a spinoff poll, and pick one variable to play with.

Maybe everything is the same, but the terrorists WOULD get away, making it questionable as to how many more deaths they might cause.

Or maybe you'd still catch the terrorists after their next attack, but you know that the country they are hiding in is ruled by a dictator who hates both you AND the terrorists.

It's just very interesting to see peoples' rationales. We already know that a good 1/5 of this community does not consider all human life equal.

I would not conduct bombings even if the village was deserted.

 

[Brighteye]

How can you weigh up unknown probable deaths against certain deaths?

In short; by taking a stance that any innocent death is worth causing for any reason creates so many other moral quandaries, that it can't be the right solution...but I still struggle to accept this.

You can risk causing deaths, but not kill. Killing is wrong according to our religion, but if your actions will probably lead other people to kill, but you think that they are good, or will achieve overall benefit, then you can do it.

 

[Brighteye]

I do see the morality in defending your nation. But when you put it ahead of humanity as a whole, I see that as 100% immoral.

Fair enough. Utilitarians might see a divide between deaths and material benefits. But how do you act for the benefit of all, rather than most? Is there such a way (that benefits everyone)?

What about the case of your life for that of a man who can contribute more to society?

And I'm still interested to know where you get the view that humanity as a whole needs defending. What gives rise to this belief? What's the justification?
Is it just a feeling? Can anyone else explain it?

 

[JoeM]

You can risk causing deaths, but not kill. Killing is wrong according to our religion, but if your actions will probably lead other people to kill, but you think that they are good, or will achieve overall benefit, then you can do it.

Why?

If so, then when is the probability too high? How confident does one have to be the result will be good? How much of an overall benefit?

There can be no absolute answer to these questions which is why I'm starting to think it is the wrong path.

 

[Aneurism]

Here is another quandary:

3000 of your civilians are murdered in a terrorist attack by an international terrorist group. 15 out of 19 of these terrorists are from a country you are closely allied with for oil. The leader of this international terrorist group comes from the same country that most of the terrorist comes from. You need to show your population that you will exact revenge and you need a scapegoat but your alliance with this country is too important to lose due to strategic oil reserves, plus there is already another country you were strategizing a reason to attack, and its leader is a brutal dictator anyway. This third country uninvolved with the terrorist attacks is run by a terrible murderous dictator, yet despite this, this third countries population enjoys more secular freedom, than the fanatical fundamental country you are allied with for oil and where the terrorists actually came from.

Moral dilemma:

do you:

a) Attack the radical country that is actually responsible, that you are allied with, whose citizens truly hate your way of life and liberty, where they managed to gather 15 of the 19 terrorists to murder 3000 of your civilians, and risk your alliance for precious oil?

or

b) Attack the 3rd country whose leader is obviously a bad guy anyways and who might have WMD (your intelligence says they don't, but hey they might be wrong), and appease your conservative voters by finding someone else to seek revenge on as a scapegoat, but risk killing 10's of thousands of innocent civilians who may not be terribly fond of your country but didn't hate your way of life quite enough to muster up 15 of 19 terrorists to murder your civilians? As a side bonus you will secure more oil reserves.

Note: I have also posted this question as a poll in a new thread.

 

[nc-1701]

I have a question what if Someone was going to kill you the next day but you could kill them with a bomb however the bomb would kill several innocent bystanders. After the person kills you he will be picked up by cops and sentenced to life in prison.

Now do you save yourself while killing him and several others? or do you let yourself die for the greater good? Or even better what if he will kill not you but your entire family?

Does this change your opinions any?

 

[JoeM]

I think your question expands on the problem with deciding when it is okay and when it isn't.

I believe the good thing is to remain passive, let the other person commit sin if he chooses. By assuming responsibility for the outcome you are denying that it is the other person that is causing the problem, and the result.

However, it's a scenario where I know I would choose my family over anothers, and accept eternal damnation as the consequence.

 

[nc-1701]

I think your question expands on the problem with deciding when it is okay and when it isn't.

I believe the good thing is to remain passive, let the other person commit sin if he chooses. By assuming responsibility for the outcome you are denying that it is the other person that is causing the problem, and the result.

However, it's a scenario where I know I would choose my family over anothers, and accept eternal damnation as the consequence.

Interesting when its you and your family it all suddenly changes is'nt it?

 

[Brighteye]

I have a question what if Someone was going to kill you the next day but you could kill them with a bomb however the bomb would kill several innocent bystanders. After the person kills you he will be picked up by cops and sentenced to life in prison.

Now do you save yourself while killing him and several others? or do you let yourself die for the greater good? Or even better what if he will kill not you but your entire family?

Does this change your opinions any?

Of course I'll kill him. Morality is a duty imposed on us by society, which we freely join, in exchange for the benefits that come from being a member of society.
If I know, absolutely and certainly, that someone is about to kill me and society cannot stop it, I'll stop it myself, forgoing the benefits of society. They're no benefit to me if I'm dead.

 

[Brighteye]

Why?

If so, then when is the probability too high? How confident does one have to be the result will be good? How much of an overall benefit?

There can be no absolute answer to these questions which is why I'm starting to think it is the wrong path.

It's a question of responsibility. Are you directly responsible for deaths or not? If your actions lead directly to a probablity of death, then yes you are. If they lead to death through that person's actions, or through the actions of people influenced by you, then you are not responsible for the deaths.

 

[JoeM]

Interesting when its you and your family it all suddenly changes is'nt it?

On the contrary, it hasn't changed at all; I still regard it as wrong. The right thing to do is not pre-emptive violence. I just said that I would do the wrong thing.

 

[JoeM]

It's a question of responsibility. Are you directly responsible for deaths or not? If your actions lead directly to a probablity of death, then yes you are. If they lead to death through that person's actions, or through the actions of people influenced by you, then you are not responsible for the deaths.

In bold is possibly the most dangerous statement to make. Think genocide and war atrocity.

In a represesentative, democratic state we are all partially responsible for our government, and by proxy, our military forces.

 

[Brighteye]

Of course we're responsible for our government.
We're not responsible for other people's actions. If Tony Blair killed George Bush when they next met, he'd be responsible for the death. I wouldn't accept that everyone in the country who could have voted at the last election is responsible for Mr. Bush's death.

Our actions led to TB having the chance to kill GB, but TB is a free agent, with as much free will as the rest of us, and responsibility for his actions lie with him, and him alone.

I never said that you weren't guilty of any crime. That's why we have crimes such as incitement to murder. You are, however, free of all responsibility for the death.

 

[dh_epic]

Fair enough. Utilitarians might see a divide between deaths and material benefits. But how do you act for the benefit of all, rather than most? Is there such a way (that benefits everyone)?

What about the case of your life for that of a man who can contribute more to society?

And I'm still interested to know where you get the view that humanity as a whole needs defending. What gives rise to this belief? What's the justification?
Is it just a feeling? Can anyone else explain it?

These are fair questions. I'm not sure how you act for the benefit of all. Gandhi himself believed strongly in nonviolence to the degree that he would not take sides in WW2. But that was a religious belief, as well as his struggle against the British occupation of his homeland (IMO). I think that whenever possible, you should try to think about the good of all. But the dilemmas are much harder to navigate.

Choosing between two lives is tough. A 70 year old senior who is the president, or a 20 year old A+ student -- who do you save? A mother of 8, or the CEO of a large company -- who matters more? To me, in these situations, there is no right answer, but by that rationale, there is no wrong answer. I think we all try to do the best that we can in these types of situations, which are hopefully rare.

Someone who says "I would do anything for my nation, right or wrong", it just doesn't make sense to me... I mean, you can like your nation, but why would you help it commit a crime against humanity? I definitely see caring about humanity as a whole as a moral position. But the alternative to thinking that you have loyalty to humanity as a whole is to believe that you only have a loyalty to your family and friends. Someone who says "enh, I only care about me and mine, screw everyone else", I respect them for being consistent, if nothing else. But when you'd help commit a crime against humanity for your nation -- I don't see how that's good in a selfish OR moral way. To me, this is someone who has bought into their government's propaganda.

 

[nc-1701]

These are fair questions. I'm not sure how you act for the benefit of all. Gandhi himself believed strongly in nonviolence to the degree that he would not take sides in WW2. But that was a religious belief, as well as his struggle against the British occupation of his homeland (IMO). I think that whenever possible, you should try to think about the good of all. But the dilemmas are much harder to navigate.

Choosing between two lives is tough. A 70 year old senior who is the president, or a 20 year old A+ student -- who do you save? A mother of 8, or the CEO of a large company -- who matters more? To me, in these situations, there is no right answer, but by that rationale, there is no wrong answer. I think we all try to do the best that we can in these types of situations, which are hopefully rare.

Someone who says "I would do anything for my nation, right or wrong", it just doesn't make sense to me... I mean, you can like your nation, but why would you help it commit a crime against humanity? I definitely see caring about humanity as a whole as a moral position. But the alternative to thinking that you have loyalty to humanity as a whole is to believe that you only have a loyalty to your family and friends. Someone who says "enh, I only care about me and mine, screw everyone else", I respect them for being consistent, if nothing else. But when you'd help commit a crime against humanity for your nation -- I don't see how that's good in a selfish OR moral way. To me, this is someone who has bought into their government's propaganda.

I said it was my duty to defend my country at all costs. Not to commit crimes in its name.

Very big differance there.

 

[Brighteye]

Someone who says "I would do anything for my nation, right or wrong", it just doesn't make sense to me... I mean, you can like your nation, but why would you help it commit a crime against humanity? I definitely see caring about humanity as a whole as a moral position. But the alternative to thinking that you have loyalty to humanity as a whole is to believe that you only have a loyalty to your family and friends. Someone who says "enh, I only care about me and mine, screw everyone else", I respect them for being consistent, if nothing else. But when you'd help commit a crime against humanity for your nation -- I don't see how that's good in a selfish OR moral way. To me, this is someone who has bought into their government's propaganda.

The point is that such people do not agree that there are such crimes.
Let me restate the case:
In 'the state of nature' there is anarchy. We are all animals, each fending for himself. When we group together for protection, specialisation etc. (mutual benefit) we form society, and only then do we agree to a set of laws governing ourselves. These laws only apply within our society; one cannot accept moral laws without accepting them first! A person needs to agree to our system before he gains the privileges and duties it involves.

These societies are countries. With no further agreements in place, we are in the state of nature with all those who are not members of our society. This means that there is no such thing as a crime towards them.

The position is entirely consistent with those who regard themselves as solely selfish. It is just that I am going a step further: my selfishness leads me to agree to laws and duties, because I benefit more from being a member of society than not.