Test your Moral Philosophy

[Mr. T]

4.7 , usually sided with what would save the most people. Not always though.

[Boyish-Tigerlilly]

But that is not logical. If everyone is equal, then 5 equals are the same as ONE equal. Do you see what I mean? The only way it would be different is if you did what I said and ascribe MORE importance to people being in a group. In other words you would be saying that 5 people are BETTER than one person. Ouch, this is making my head hurt. lol.

That's not illogical, because we are talking about equality of consideration. We are taking each person's interests into account equally. This doesn't mean that one person is worth more than 5. It means that the interests of one are just as valuable as the interests of any other 1. One man is equal to another man, but this doesn't mean that one man is equal to 13 men.

For example, take cherry trees. Say there are 4 equal cherry-trees, and the care for one is just as valuable to consider as the any other one. If we consider them equally in terms of moral consideration, then you cannot kill 1 to save 1, because that's pointless, and one tree is just as good as another tree. However, it would be obviously worse to kill 3 trees to save 1 tree, because if they are all equal, the life of 1 cannot outweigh the life of the other 3 trees.

Tree 1: 2 utils
Tree 2: 2 utils
Tree 3: 2 utls
Tree 4: 2 Utils

In the above, all 4 trees are worth 2 utils each. They are all equal to one another. However, any grouping of trees is worth more than a single tree. You don't kill 3 trees to save one, because collectively, you lost 6 utils.

The problem you're having is that you are not taking into account equality of consideration. You treat each man equally according to another man, but if you have more concerns at stake, it obvious outweighs the one. That's not illogical.

See the problem here is the word 'should'. It implies that you have a duty to choose an action or inaction that condemns or saves people. You are in effect, playing God to these people.

This is the purpouse of ethics. Shoulds, woulds, and coulds. If you disagree with ethics, fine, I cannot make you agree with it.

Now naturally we would do something if we could in a situation for whomever we felt needed help, but from a purely semantical moral position, you really AREN'T beholden for any of them because it's fate causing the situation, not you. So it's arguably not "fair" to be forced to choose who to save and who to let die, or as in some scenarios, who to kill to save others.

It does not matter whether or not it's fate, because a choice not to do something is still a choice which has consequences. People who stand by and do nothing when they are completely able to do something, are at least just as responsible for the consequences.

People who allow something to happen, if it's practically preventable, are responsible for the consequences of their choice. For example, let's take your comment about fate. Should you stand by and watch someone drown? It's not your job to save them. It's fate; it's nature. If you think that it's perfectly ok to let the person drown simply because you don't want to save him and it's fate, then you are immoral.

Think of Kant's Law: It states that an Ought implies that you can. The reverse of this dictum is also important. You cannot be held morally accountable for something beyond your control, but if you CAN do it, it's not beyond you control, therefore it's an imperative. Doing nothing does not absolve you of consequences or your duty.

[DocHorror]

6.2, but i don't hold too much stock in these kinds of tests. If it comes down to some kind of vulcan '..the needs of the many' shit then of course you are going to chose to save the many over the one.

In real life you wouldn't be in total command of all the facts and your choices would reflect this.

[spikenigma]

Your statistic is 2.8

tended to approach the test with the following things in mind

* If I can save 1 person Vs. 5 People without killing someone who is not already dieing directly - I'll save the 5
* A passenger with me in a boat with me has given me their trust to keep them safe, therefore, I'll not sacrifice them for 5
* If 5 people are stupid enough to be walking on the tracks, I'm not going to kill an innocent for their stupidity

that is all

[Zadius]

4.6

It's not as simple as 5>1 sometimes. I'm not gonna push a guy (presumably a friend of mine) outta my boat to go save a bunch of drowning people that I don't know. Why should my friend die for them? If they can't swim then why'd they go in the water?

The stupidity of the people involved is a consideration for me.

[Dakarne]

5.6...

Personally... I do slightly agree with the Needs of Many>Needs of Few philosophy... but I would never like to be put into that situation personally...

[Justforfun000]

Sorry, I forgot to get back to you.


BOYISH-TIGERLILLY SAID:

The problem you're having is that you are not taking into account equality of consideration. You treat each man equally according to another man, but if you have more concerns at stake, it obvious outweighs the one. That's not illogical.

I guess so...I mean I see your point, but at the same time from a purely semantic view it just seems to be illogical that more then one equal person can be more equal in consideration because of numbers. Ah well. Must be me. My brain doesn't want to work on this one.

This is the purpouse of ethics. Shoulds, woulds, and coulds. If you disagree with ethics, fine, I cannot make you agree with it.

Oh of course. I'm trying to argue this in a true sense of responsibility though, not what I would do in real life.

It does not matter whether or not it's fate, because a choice not to do something is still a choice which has consequences. People who stand by and do nothing when they are completely able to do something, are at least just as responsible for the consequences.

This I'm not sure I agree with. I don't think I can agree on the word "responsible". Ineffectual and possibly reprehensible yes, but I get bothered by the assumption that you SHOULD be responsible for a situation you had nothing to do with forming.

For example, if I walked beside someone on a street corner that as I passed was pulled from behind into an alleyway by some guy with a gun and I ran away instead of risking my life by trying to pull him away, would I be responsible if he was killed?

Of course I would like to think I would overcome my fear and jump in at no though to myself, but for the purposes of this scenario, assume I'm a chickenshit.

Should you stand by and watch someone drown? It's not your job to save them. It's fate; it's nature. If you think that it's perfectly ok to let the person drown simply because you don't want to save him and it's fate, then you are immoral.

I would certainly FEEL immoral if I didn't try to save the person, but at the same time, I wouldn't consider myself RESPONSIBLE for his death. The water was and I didn't put it there, OR that person in it. I know this is hair splitting to a degree, but I'm only arguing this purely on a conceptual basis. Of COURSE I would not do nothing in real life.

Think of Kant's Law: It states that an Ought implies that you can. The reverse of this dictum is also important. You cannot be held morally accountable for something beyond your control, but if you CAN do it, it's not beyond you control, therefore it's an imperative. Doing nothing does not absolve you of consequences or your duty.

But what exactly is "duty"? Lets work on that term first.