Werewolf attacks palace event - what does it do?

[Ulysseslotro]

He is innocent in the sense that he deserves to be saved just as much as any other guy. He may even be a serial killer, but we are not interested in that in this dilemma. Just because he happened to be the man getting left behind in an extraordinary situation is no reason for throwing morality out the window, neither does it mean he is less worthy of being saved.

And lying in your death bed, years from now. Would you be willing to trade all the days from this day to the next just for one chance to save as many lives as possible? LoL couldn't resist. But yeah, if I'm lying on my death bed, I don't want to be thinking wow, I left the gate open and doomed them all just to give one man a chance at survival. I would rather be saying to myself I saved as many as possible, and although fate gave that man a bad hand, it is no fault of my own. Consciously, you should feel guilty for dooming more to their deaths than needed to happen.

 

[Furin]

I bet there are no results in this event because Kael took the whole thing from a clever philosophy book and fantasyfied it, did he already say what is the "right thing to do" in the last 12 or so pages? Bet not, right?

 

[Ulysseslotro]

Lets just change the question slightly. Lets change it from the Leader of the civ your playing and make it into a lowly Guardmans responsible for opening and closing the gate for the last 20 years. If he closes the gate and he is doing his job. If he leaves the gate open he aids and abets the Werewolves. That's treason in my book.

Putting the shoes on someone else besides yourself can allow you to see the correct perspective. In this case, closing the gate is good, leaving it open is evil.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

I really find hard to understand why the closing the gate version poses an objection. I really do not think there is one single person in this world that would not close the gate. I, still, can't see why you say this would not be moral, Honor. I don;t think anyone believes that the slow person does not deserve to be saved, nor that any effort in the disposal should be made for saving all the people in danger. The point is that the event does not allow you another course of action. So, it is wether you will allow the werewolf to kill the 5 that made it to the gate, just because the one limbed behind or not.

 

[Lemminkäinen]

I really find hard to understand why the closing the gate version poses an objection. I really do not think there is one single person in this world that would not close the gate. I, still, can't see why you say this would not be moral, Honor. I don;t think anyone believes that the slow person does not deserve to be saved, nor that any effort in the disposal should be made for saving all the people in danger. The point is that the event does not allow you another course of action. So, it is wether you will allow the werewolf to kill the 5 that made it to the gate, just because the one limbed behind or not.

The answer depends on how you form the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The answer depends on how you form the question:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trolley_problem

All the answers at that link involve endagering people that are innocent/not endagered. The main difference with the close the gate version is that, if you close the gate, the person that is finaly hurt
a)was about to be hurt in the first place, since he was involved in the insident
b)his own inability is going to be the actual cause of his death, and not your actions.
c)His own inability endagers the other 5 people and will cause their death, thus he is the one endagering and threatens to cause the death of the others

So, I am sure you can see the difference from the examples in the thread you provide, where all options, except inactivity, lead to the death of unsuspected people out of harms way.

 

[Honor]

Actually according to your point of view the people tied to the tracks in the Trolley problem are not "innocent" either because they were too dumb to get themselves tied in the first place. The 4 guys endanger the life of the 1 guy as much as the 1 guy endangers the lives of the 4 guys.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

Actually according to your point of view the people tied to the tracks in the Trolley problem are not "innocent" either because they were too dumb to get themselves tied in the first place. The 4 guys endanger the life of the 1 guy as much as the 1 guy endangers the lives of the 4 guys.

My point of view is that this one is different than the gate issue, and I have listed the differences already. The trolley issue is different.

What we do here is discussing a specific event, where one person is endagering the lives of 5 others and you have the option to save the five others or let them die so that the one that brings the harm to them can escape.

EDIT: Please do not confuse my arguments with Ulysseslotro's arguments.

 

[Lemminkäinen]

So, I am sure you can see the difference from the examples in the thread you provide, where all options, except inactivity, lead to the death of unsuspected people out of harms way.

Agreed - just wanted to point out the original philosophical problem and how forming of the question changes the answer. Apparently here (with the gate and the werewolf) the question is posed in a somewhat silly way that sort of hampers the philosophical puzzle.

 

[Honor]

But the 1 guy does not directly bring them harm. It's the werewolf that brings the fast guys the actual harm. Your point b) is wrong, because he has a chance to survive the incident if you do not intervene. That means, his "inability" is not an inability or a disadvantage at all, it is an advantage in his situation, until you intervene. Your point a) is true for the other 5 guys as well, unless you intervene and close the portcullis (they are not faster than the werewolf, they are just faster than the slow guy) - which means they endanger the slow guy as much as the slow guy endangers them, depending on your action, and c) ignores the fact that the werewolf is the real threat here, and not some random trait of the guy that lags behind. He might be lagging behind because he hurt his leg the day before trying to save one of the fast guys' lives, for instance. Seeing his condition as the source of the danger is just wrong.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

But the 1 guy does not directly bring them harm. It's the werewolf that brings the fast guys the actual harm. Your point b) is wrong, because he has a chance to survive the incident if you do not intervene. That means, his "inability" is not an inability or a disadvantage at all, it is an advantage in his situation, until you intervene. Your point a) is true for the other 5 guys as well, unless you intervene and close the portcullis (they are not faster than the werewolves, they are just faster than the slow guy) - which means they endanger the slow guy as much as the slow guy endangers them, depending on your action, and c) ignores the fact that the werewolf is the real threat here, and not some random trait of the guy that lags behind. He might be lagging behind because he hurt his leg the day before trying to save one of the fast guys' lives, for instance. Seeing his condition as the source of the danger is just wrong.

Again, this is not the case. He will live at the expence of the others, while, if he was faster, they would all have lived.

Faster, in this case, means fast enough to reach safety, which is the castle, if you close the portcullis.

The threat is the werewolf, but the slowness of the 6th person will be the cause for the 5 to die.

All assumptions you make are not part of the event, so we do not know why he was left behind(although the event mentions he is too slow), and, since there is no third option, it wouldn't really matter, anyway.

 

[Honor]

Again, this is not the case. He will live at the expence of the others, while, if he was faster, they would all have lived.

True, but does this give you the right to play God and exchange his place with the 5 guys that would have died had you not intervened?

Faster, in this case, means fast enough to reach safety, which is the castle, if you close the portcullis.

If you close the portcullis. If you do not close the portcullis, he will not need speed to survive the situation. That means you are effectively bringing him harm, and not his condition.

The threat is the werewolf, but the slowness of the 6th person will be the cause for the 5 to die.

Their real cause of death would be their numbers. Had they not been 5 people, but 1 person, the werewolf would not pursue them.

You and only you will be the cause of the slow guy's death if you close down that portcullis, simply because of the fact that your inaction would have lead to the slow guy's survival.

 

[Thunder_Gr]

True, but does this give you the right to play God and exchange his place with the 5 guys that would have died had you not intervened?

You don't play God, you act naturally. When you are in danger you run to the closest safe place. Now, how would you justify the denial to provide the chased persons with the safety they are entitled to by reaching the safe place in time?

If you close the portcullis. If you do not close the portcullis, he will not need speed to survive the situation. That means you are effectively bringing him harm, and not his condition.

The werewolf would kill him if he was not greedy enough to go after the five. So, the werewolf kills him as he would natuarally have done.

Their real cause of death would be their numbers. Had they not been 5 people, but 1 person, the werewolf would not pursue them.

Wrong, if it was one person and it was not fast enough to reach the gate, he would have died as well. Besides, the event does not state anything like that. What you say is a hypothetical situation that we will never know what result would have.

You and only you will be the cause of the slow guy's death if you close down that portcullis, simply because of the fact that your inaction would have lead to the slow guy's survival.

And the death of those that have made it to their goal, safety.

 

[Honor]

The safe place is not safe at all until you close the portcullis. Anyway, I have grown tired of this discussion. Let's just hug and call it a day, shall we?

 

[Thunder_Gr]

The safe place is not safe at all until you close the portcullis. Anyway, I have grown tired of this discussion. Let's just hug and call it a day, shall we?

The safe place has a portcullis to make it safe. So, the portcullis is supposed to be used in situations like this.
OK, but I really can't believe that you wouldn't close the gate in this kind of situation

 

[Emptiness]

True, but does this give you the right to play God and exchange his place with the 5 guys that would have died had you not intervened?

Either choice can be called "playing God". The truth is that the werewolf is the one doing the killing, not you. Your involvement is only an illusion, an attempt to influence the outcome. There are no guarantees. Who can say that the werewolf won't kill the slow guy and then leap over the wall and slaughter everyone inside? The whole discussion is pointless.

You and only you will be the cause of the slow guy's death if you close down that portcullis, simply because of the fact that your inaction would have lead to the slow guy's survival.

Do you blame yourself for all the people who have ever died of Cancer, too? I mean, after all, you haven't cured it - so it must be your fault they've died, right?

 

[Honor]

The safe place has a portcullis to make it safe. So, the portcullis is supposed to be used in situations like this.
OK, but I really can't believe that you wouldn't close the gate in this kind of situation

I never said that I only said a morally absolutist good person could not decide whether to close the gate or not. I am not one of them.

 

[Honor]

Either choice can be called "playing God". The truth is that the werewolf is the one doing the killing, not you. Your involvement is only an illusion, an attempt to influence the outcome.

Your involvement is not an illusion, because it affects the outcome. Yes, either choice can be called playing God, that is why I said a morally absolutist good person cannot decide either way.

As I said, I am not saying I wouldn't close the portcullis if I were in that situation, I am just debating the morality of the action. I would close down that portcullis, but wouldn't claim to have done a "good" thing after that.

 

[Ulysseslotro]

Heroes are named for selfless acts of saving others.

So if you jumped down and saved all of the people, you would be a hero. In this situation the Hero is "Acting" and therefor doing something to save lives.

Since saving as many lives as possible is what can get you dubbed a Hero, it must be the greater good. If that is the case then you shouldn't think "I won't doom one for all" but you should think "I wouldn't doom all for one"

Also, since your in a position of power, its your duty and honor to do your job of protection. Since protecting people can earn you Hero titles by the people, it is the greatest of good.

If all that is true, then protecting those you can instead of being frightened you'll go to hell for dooming one is the correct answer. Afterall, those too cowardly to close the gate, are in their own way evil for dooming as many as possible because they could not react in time to save as many as possible.

Just because you rephrase the fear of going to hell for dooming one person, in a goodly way, still does not make that answer good.

The phrase "I will not doom one to save the rest" Implies that the Werewolves will somehow go around the 'Slow' guy to go kill the faster ones, and then the slow one survives lol. OK if this happens, the Werewolves are specifically baiting you to leave the gate open. If that is the case, you failed not only your duty, lost all honor, and were too cowardly and afraid of hell to save those you could, you also aided unwillingly the Werewolves strategy, which means they wanted to trick you into the morale dilemma. If you allow them to succeed, you have failed. Failure is not good in any way. Not in my book

The words "Evil prevails when good men fail to act" This is a prime example of good dilemma where evil prevails if good men do not act.

 

[Honor]

Where did the argument on fear of going to hell come from? Never argued that was the cause of one's moral principles. I, for one, do not even believe hell exists. It is not as much fear of hell as the fear of violating one's principles.

In this case, both taking an action and just standing still have undesirable consequences (I think you got the scenario a bit wrong there - it is only a choice between the life of 1 person vs the lives of 5 people, not the townsfolk). So a leader who has the absolute moral principle of "never cause harm to an innocent" is totally screwed in this scenario, no matter what he does or doesn't do.