[quote]Legionary wrote:
I would condemn my family to death without hesitation. [/quote]
Sorry, don’t believe it for a second.[/quote]
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself. Your belief certainly wouldn’t prevent me from acting on my moral convictions. Why is it so difficult to believe a man would sacrifice a few lives that are dear to him to save many, many more and spare those families from experiencing that agony? 3,000 people and their loved ones are much greater than my lone family. Its simple utilitarian ethics. Anyone who would do otherwise is a very short-sighted and immoral man. Are you telling me you would choose your family?
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I would condemn my family to death without hesitation. [/quote]
Sorry, don’t believe it for a second.[/quote]
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself. Your belief certainly wouldn’t prevent me from acting on my moral convictions. Why is it so difficult to believe a man would sacrifice a few lives that are dear to him to save many, many more and spare those families from experiencing that agony? 3,000 people and their loved ones are much greater than my lone family. Its simple utilitarian ethics. Anyone who would do otherwise is a very short-sighted and immoral man. Are you telling me you would choose your family?[/quote]
I would absolutely choose my family. Utilitarianism is sort of stupid but we can play. If 3600 is great enough for you to let your kids go. How about the number of kids you have plus 1? Is that enough suffering saved to sacrifice your kids? Plus 10? Where’s the magic number?
Some things are pointless to try to quantify. You need to place something like an infinite value on 1 life to make utilitarian ethics not bog down in a quagmire.
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself.[/quote]
You ever kill a family member before? Take their life, which wasn’t yours to take? Ever even point a gun at them and just threaten to do it? Hogwash.
Well, we’d jail you afterwards.
First, they weren’t dear to him. If they were, he wouldn’t have made the ultimate decision for them.
No they’re not.
Immoral? I’m not the one boasting I’d murder my family ‘for the sake of the community.’ How many of those victims’ families would even want you to murder your family? I’ve lost family, and I damn sure wouldn’t want someone to murder an innocent, including their parents or children, to bring 'em back.
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself.[/quote]
You ever kill a family member before? Take their life, which wasn’t yours to take? Ever even point a gun at them and just threaten to do it? Hogwash.
Well, we’d jail you afterwards.
First, they weren’t dear to him. If they were, he wouldn’t have made the ultimate decision for them.
No they’re not.
Immoral? I’m not the one boasting I’d murder my family ‘for the sake of the community.’ How many of those victims’ families would even want you to murder your family? I’ve lost family, and I damn sure wouldn’t want someone to murder an innocent, including their parents or children, to bring 'em back.
[/quote]
You basically hit the major problems with rule utilitarianism though some people I guess don’t consider them insurmountable. It has no integrity, doesn’t allow for any personal point of view and has no moral agency.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Well, one thing. I’m always suspicious about these scenarios. The large numbers are a flimsy justification. The question should be if would you do it to remove suffering from your family, and to grant them vast prosperity. If you REALLY wouldn’t do it for them, you’re likely not going to do it for 300+ million. The vast majority you will never meet, much less know. Saying yes when numbers greater than your family’s share are presented is the answer of a person who now feels safe to say yes. A person who didn’t want to say yes, but thought it, when the question was narrowed to his family. Because, hey, everyone around me must be calculating the odds of it being his/her daughter/son sentenced to misery. I’d say yes to benefit you, you say yes to benefit me. I suspect the vaaaast majority of those in the affirmative would do it simply for their family. But the knowledge that others are being seduced by promises of splendor makes them feel safe to actually say yes. And a large chunk of the affirmative would actually say yes, in their hearts, if it only benefited themselves.[/quote]
Its not a scenario per say but a fantastical form of fable: Her world, her rules. I feel that the numbers are an acceptable justification vs my family. For me its not promises of splendor but the greater good of the community that leads me to maintain the status quo. Honestly, if I had to choose between my entire extended family dying at once vs. the 2,996 dead and more than 6,000 injured on 9/11, I would condemn my family to death without hesitation. The devastating loss I would experience would be monumentally dwarfed by the total loss felt by those impacted that day. It would be beyond immoral to choose otherwise. In most cases, the end justifies the means. [/quote]
I would not. This is just utilitarianism. Pure utilitarianism with no qualifiers leads to all types of stupid hypotheticals. Better bring more than 3600 if you want my kids. You can have my crazy uncle for considerably less though.[/quote]
But that is the problem with utilitarianism.
He who defines the qualifiers controls the outcome.
[quote]Legionary wrote:
I would condemn my family to death without hesitation. [/quote]
Sorry, don’t believe it for a second.[/quote]
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself. Your belief certainly wouldn’t prevent me from acting on my moral convictions. Why is it so difficult to believe a man would sacrifice a few lives that are dear to him to save many, many more and spare those families from experiencing that agony? 3,000 people and their loved ones are much greater than my lone family. Its simple utilitarian ethics. Anyone who would do otherwise is a very short-sighted and immoral man. Are you telling me you would choose your family?[/quote]
I would absolutely choose my family. Utilitarianism is sort of stupid but we can play. If 3600 is great enough for you to let your kids go. How about the number of kids you have plus 1? Is that enough suffering saved to sacrifice your kids? Plus 10? Where’s the magic number?
Some things are pointless to try to quantify. You need to place something like an infinite value on 1 life to make utilitarian ethics not bog down in a quagmire.[/quote]
I feel the same as I am not an absolute Utilitarian. Any discussion of ethics is going to be extremely subjective and situation. We don’t live in a black and white world, but one that is painted in various shades of gray. There is no magic number. However, in this scenario I believe that one can easily argue it is very rational to choose the 3,000.
I feel the same as I am not an absolute Utilitarian. Any discussion of ethics is going to be extremely subjective and situation. We don’t live in a black and white world, but one that is painted in various shades of gray. There is no magic number. However, in this scenario I believe that one can easily argue it is very rational to choose the 3,000.
[/quote]
How about 300? 30? How about a number that is one person greater than the sum of your family?
You seem to think you know me better than I know myself.[/quote]
You ever kill a family member before? Take their life, which wasn’t yours to take? Ever even point a gun at them and just threaten to do it? Hogwash.
Well, we’d jail you afterwards.
First, they weren’t dear to him. If they were, he wouldn’t have made the ultimate decision for them.
No they’re not.
Immoral? I’m not the one boasting I’d murder my family ‘for the sake of the community.’ How many of those victims’ families would even want you to murder your family? I’ve lost family, and I damn sure wouldn’t want someone to murder an innocent, including their parents or children, to bring 'em back.
[/quote]
Is the world truly that black and white to you? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scenario. My entire family is not murdered by my own hand but is killed regardless. Doesn’t matter how. You cannot make an argument that this man is not acting selflessly.(I’m sure you’ll say that by choosing the 3,000 I am in effect murdering them) What about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Is that a big enough number for you?
Is the world truly that black and white to you? You have a fundamental misunderstanding of the scenario. My entire family is not murdered by my own hand but is killed regardless. Doesn’t matter how. You cannot make an argument that this man is not acting selflessly.(I’m sure you’ll say that by choosing the 3,000 I am in effect murdering them) What about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Is that a big enough number for you?[/quote]
You might as well be pulling the trigger. You’re culpability isn’t blunted because you’re not the trigger man, ‘just’ the guy giving the nod. Hell, sounds a bit squeamish to me. Would it take double, 6000, for you to directly act as the executioner in this scenario? Does the price go up? And, of course it’s murder. You’re actively and deliberately targeting non-threats for death. Damn, if you’re going to pose these scenarios, call things what they are. It’s murder. You would be murdering (or, having murdered) your family. This is a question about the price of murder. Why ask one of those ‘tough’ philosophical questions, only to go all soft over the proper identification of what the question entails.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Can I volunteer?[/quote]
Of course, feel free to jump in.
[/quote]
Na, can I be the one to be tortured to death for all of mankind?
Oh sorry I must be especially dense today. Of course, more statues than you can imagine. Oh, and you’ll be the savior of a religion which will become the largest in the world. Mel Gibson will also make a hit movie exploiting…ummm, I mean, honoring your sacrifice, and occasionally, someone will claim to see your image in toast.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
So, if the numbers are subjective, how do you call another person immoral for not biting at 3,000? Or 3,000,000? And so on. [/quote]
Seriously, would you do it for 30? If not, are you then immoral, because you had the ability to and didn’t?
[/quote]
Seriously, I asked first. Again, what about one man being brutally tortured to death for the sake of mankind? Would you condemn him to death? Or is this in all cases immoral because you are in fact murdering him?[/quote]
Let me make this crystal clear. It doesn’t matter the number. It is immoral.
Now, for 30?[/quote]
You just said that God sending Jesus to die on the cross for mankind was immoral. Now, how can an omnibenevolent god like Yahweh be capable of that?[/quote]