Help me align my moral standards

[JoJo]

While I can't speak for your respondent, I have a similar perspective, though the choice of (C) is dependent on the availability of certain decisive information. In the absence of any data whatsoever other than "person A is this, person B is this, and one of them will die with equal chance of each", I just lack any warrant to intervene in the process that decides which.

In order to make a decision as to which life to save, there needs to be some information as to the situation in which the two people are being presented to be killed. If I'm not given sufficient accurate information to be able to truthfully say that there is a determinate fact of the matter as to which of the two "is better", then I simply lack any kind of ability to make a sound judgement to any effect. Moreover, what if the information denies there being a "wrong" choice, such as where both are to some extent either due to be killed? Again, this would seem to be a situation in which I lack critical faculties required to judge effectively.

I believe (C) is the rational option in cases where the way in which the choice has been presented lacks sufficient data to make a clear analysis, because if I have not been given enough information, there is too much of a risk that I have been primed to divert responsibility from those actually performing the deed pending my intervention.

I think your choice between "a child" and "a murderer" is one such situation. Why do I have any reason to think either is more morally deserving of death right now?

Because barring extremely unlikely circumstances, a child is automatically less deserving of death than any adult, let alone a murderer. If you don't believe me, just look at the extra hatred that child murderers or rapists get, even in prison from regular murderers.

Also in a real life situation the chances are you wouldn't have enough time to judge every little facet. While it's an effective thought experiment, in the real world you would almost certainly never have to pick between two people for certain death. Instead you might be the first on the scene of a terrible car accident and have to decide who to give aid to first to: the mother or her child?

While thankfully I've never been in such an extreme situation, I have been in a more minor one that made me make a split second decision between the safety of two beings. This summer I was at a party with my neighbours and I ended up supervising my 8 year old sister and her friend who's about the same age out the front near the road, I was the only adult around. The kids were playing with my sister friend's cat but being an animal, it tried to escape them and ran into the road where a car was travelling towards it. My sister's friend could see that the car was heading it's way and she began to step into the road to get the cat. I made the split-second decision that it was too risky for her to attempt to retrieve the cat and called out for her to stay where she was, which luckily she did.

If I had taken time to think about my decision carefully, then she would have already walked into the road and could well have been hit by the car. In a second I decided that while I didn't want to see the cat get run over, and thankfully it did manage to avoid the car after-all, I valued the child's life too much to let her put herself at risk for the cat's sake. The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

 

[Indeterminacy]

The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

But the key thing here is that I have no gut instinct concerning the choice in your thought experiment. In the Mother/Child example, obviously you need to do a quick balance up between gravity of the injury and likelihood of survival, but those things being equal, I would genuinely rather fight the odds to rescue both of them than to try to limit the damage and rescue just one at the expense of the other. My snap decisions simply don't work like yours, largely because the only possible reasons I can think of for choosing one over the other simply don't come into effect (in your particular example of a single binary decision) at the point at which the decision needs to be made.

My snap decision process is about quickly identifying optimal strategies, rather than extrapolating from general rules. In the Mother/Child scenario, let's say 100% of the time the person I choose lives and the other dies. However, suppose I instead spend time calling for help, or by dealing with some structural aspect of the car wreck, putting both mother and child at a 60% chance of survival. This is unquestionably a better option to me. Even given that there is a 16% chance that they'll both die, more often than not more people will survive by my adopting this strategy than by choosing one over the other.

Reducing the case to 50% would mean the two strategies were just as good, and if the situation looked worse than that, I would try to see if I could take a prior risk that would improve the case to one above 50%. Of course if saving the Mother or Child first might improve the survival chance of the other, then we have a different story; I would most likely assist the Mother first for that reason.

The point being here that I adopt a position of indifference towards people on the basis of social status. I would think differently if it was my family on the line, or if it was a choice between people with talents of varying levels of practical importance (I'd rescue a doctor over a banker every time, say). But without such differences, I'm inclined to abstract away from the nature of the individual and more towards a maximum utility perspective.

Obviously the cat example is different - the snap decision is easy here because the optimal strategy weighs very heavily towards not putting the child at risk.

 

[Gloomsta]

This popped up in my mind after I saw a dicussion in another thread and now I want to know your opinion.

As far as I know:

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Questions:

Is child rape worse that murder? Why?
Yes? Then how many murders equals one child rape?
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder?

These things are exactly compare, their both fucking bad.


In general to harm others is bad, to harm others for yourself is bad.

 

[crudus]

This is going to get kind of hard to manage, but bear with me. We can do it.

Instead you might be the first on the scene of a terrible car accident and have to decide who to give aid to first to: the mother or her child?

Easy, the most injured one. It is even easier if one or both of them in conscious. Also, random passer-bys tend to get to the scene very quickly. If they are both heavily injured and/or unconscious, then at least one (my money is on the child) died on impact. It is surprisingly difficult to knock somebody on conscious. If you are knocked unconscious by a blow to the head for even a few seconds, expect brain damage.

I made the split-second decision that it was too risky for her to attempt to retrieve the cat and called out for her to stay where she was, which luckily she did.

Last I heard, over 90 percent of pet owners say they are willing to risk their lives for their pets. I for one was a little disappointed in the fact the survey didn't tell me how many of those pets were goldfish, but you can't have everything. Although yes you would have has a fun time explaining that to the guardian of the child.

The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

Here is the thing though: this started as "it is worse to kill a 20-year-old than a 92-year-old". Then I said something like "well, since we rank crimes by severity anyway, we may as well take into account how good of a person the victim was and calculate that into the sentencing". We have that sort of time to calculate that out before a trial.

You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

How about if I told B's mother that I chose him to die because of his past? I don't know when the murder took place, or if he regrets it. He could have committed the murder 15-20 years prior. He could be an upstanding citizen of the community without a single other thing on his record. Hell depending on how the conviction was written, he could have just been a drunk driver who killed someone. Something like is without malice or intent. Imagine telling his daughter and wife that you chose him to die for something he did in the past.

If your little dilemma happened to my daughter and somebody told me they picked C, I would tell them they did the right thing. I certainly wouldn't hold any ill will against him even if he did pick A or B. I assume this is totally against the choosers will (gun point or something).

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

I am extremely curious of your definition of murder all of a sudden. It certainly isn't the U.S. legal definition.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

If I say murdering another is wrong, why would I have the right to do it? If I killed for revenge where does that get me even if it was legal? It doesn't being back what/who I lost, it just brings more pain in the world, and it would make me a hypocrite. Revenge has malicious intent and premeditation and is therefore murder. Now why is murdering people wrong? All I can say is how I make my moral standings. I started off by breaking everything down into the golden rule (do unto others, etc). I don't want to be murdered, I therefore do not murder. If I reach that conclusion, I consider it wrong(severity varies).

Back to your dilemma. Why would I have the right to decide who is more deserving of life? Better yet, why is a murderer less deserving of life? Why is anyone more deserving of life? A murderer can show regret, have a life, try to make amends. Everyone should have a chance at redemption; it isn't something we can deny them of. Why? Because I would like a chance if I was in their shoes. I honestly would not be able to choose between them. It isn't just because of my moral code. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually cannot point at someone and say "they deserve life more than that person". We can run your dilemma millions upon billions of times and no matter what A and B are, I will always choose C.

 

[JoJo]

But the key thing here is that I have no gut instinct concerning the choice in your thought experiment. In the Mother/Child example, obviously you need to do a quick balance up between gravity of the injury and likelihood of survival, but those things being equal, I would genuinely rather fight the odds to rescue both of them than to try to limit the damage and rescue just one at the expense of the other. My snap decisions simply don't work like yours, largely because the only possible reasons I can think of for choosing one over the other simply don't come into effect (in your particular example of a single binary decision) at the point at which the decision needs to be made.

My snap decision process is about quickly identifying optimal strategies, rather than extrapolating from general rules. In the Mother/Child scenario, let's say 100% of the time the person I choose lives and the other dies. However, suppose I instead spend time calling for help, or by dealing with some structural aspect of the car wreck, putting both mother and child at a 60% chance of survival. This is unquestionably a better option to me. Even given that there is a 16% chance that they'll both die, more often than not more people will survive by my adopting this strategy than by choosing one over the other.

Reducing the case to 50% would mean the two strategies were just as good, and if the situation looked worse than that, I would try to see if I could take a prior risk that would improve the case to one above 50%. Of course if saving the Mother or Child first might improve the survival chance of the other, then we have a different story; I would most likely assist the Mother first for that reason.

The point being here that I adopt a position of indifference towards people on the basis of social status. I would think differently if it was my family on the line, or if it was a choice between people with talents of varying levels of practical importance (I'd rescue a doctor over a banker every time, say). But without such differences, I'm inclined to abstract away from the nature of the individual and more towards a maximum utility perspective.

Obviously the cat example is different - the snap decision is easy here because the optimal strategy weighs very heavily towards not putting the child at risk.

That's all very well and good, but the issue I can see here is that you are giving exact percentages for the chances of survival for each of the victims. In real life you wouldn't know what was the optimal strategy, you probably wouldn't even know much about their injuries (I'm assuming you aren't a trained medical practician) other than what's immediately apparent. From what you've said it sounds like you have an internal rating system I like I do considering you said you'd pick a doctor over a banker, just as I would choose a child over an adult. There probably isn't much more to argue about since internal moral systems aren't the sort of thing that can be changed at a whim.

This is going to get kind of hard to manage, but bear with me. We can do it.

Easy, the most injured one. It is even easier if one or both of them in conscious. Also, random passer-bys tend to get to the scene very quickly. If they are both heavily injured and/or unconscious, then at least one (my money is on the child) died on impact. It is surprisingly difficult to knock somebody on conscious. If you are knocked unconscious by a blow to the head for even a few seconds, expect brain damage. [/quote]

That's a valid answer, though the rest of the paragraph's a little irrelevant as I'm giving it as a rough example to which the details aren't relevant, the important point is that in a real life situation you almost certainly wouldn't have time to get into careful thought about who to value more.

Last I heard, over 90 percent of pet owners say they are willing to risk their lives for their pets. I for one was a little disappointed in the fact the survey didn't tell me how many of those pets were goldfish, but you can't have everything. Although yes you would have has a fun time explaining that to the guardian of the child.

I'm surprised by the highness of that figure, guess some of those must be goldfish owners! If she had been an adult then risking her life would have been her own choice but I'll be damned if I let an 8 or 9 year old girl risk getting injured for the sake of a cat I don't frankly give a shit about.

Here is the thing though: this started as "it is worse to kill a 20-year-old than a 92-year-old". Then I said something like "well, since we rank crimes by severity anyway, we may as well take into account how good of a person the victim was and calculate that into the sentencing". We have that sort of time to calculate that out before a trial.

Agreed, we have deviated from the original point somewhat. Taking the victim's past into account wouldn't make much of a difference though, and shouldn't at-all if the murderer was unaware of that past. The only case I can think of it where it perhaps should make a difference is if the victim has somehow terribly wronged the murderer or someone close to them, then that might be mitigating factor depending on what actually happened.

How about if I told B's mother that I chose him to die because of his past? I don't know when the murder took place, or if he regrets it. He could have committed the murder 15-20 years prior. He could be an upstanding citizen of the community without a single other thing on his record. Hell depending on how the conviction was written, he could have just been a drunk driver who killed someone. Something like is without malice or intent. Imagine telling his daughter and wife that you chose him to die for something he did in the past.

If your little dilemma happened to my daughter and somebody told me they picked C, I would tell them they did the right thing. I certainly wouldn't hold any ill will against him even if he did pick A or B. I assume this is totally against the choosers will (gun point or something).

I am extremely curious of your definition of murder all of a sudden. It certainly isn't the U.S. legal definition.

Well I don't live in the U.S. (I'm British) so that definition doesn't affect me unless I go on holiday to there. My definition is "the deliberate killing of a person without justification", the pretty much the same as the law, though I might stretch "justification" to include revenge in certain circumstances such as a rapist or murderer getting away without being punished.

If I say murdering another is wrong, why would I have the right to do it? If I killed for revenge where does that get me even if it was legal? It doesn't being back what/who I lost, it just brings more pain in the world, and it would make me a hypocrite. Revenge has malicious intent and premeditation and is therefore murder. Now why is murdering people wrong? All I can say is how I make my moral standings. I started off by breaking everything down into the golden rule (do unto others, etc). I don't want to be murdered, I therefore do not murder. If I reach that conclusion, I consider it wrong(severity varies).

I agree with the golden rule, which is why I believe that moral justice must be enforced. If someone commits a great wrong they must be punished, that doesn't make me a hypocrite as unlike them I had a valid reason. I would only resort to vigilantism if the justice system had already failed since a proper system is far better than anything else, but I could never rest if I knew someone who had committed a wrong against someone I love was still at large and unpunished. I also see the idea of the revenge seeker as aesthetically beautiful, a person with one clear goal in their mind, motivated by love to aim like a homing missile towards the offender until they strike down like an angel of death upon them to dispel justice.

Back to your dilemma. Why would I have the right to decide who is more deserving of life? Better yet, why is a murderer less deserving of life? Why is anyone more deserving of life? A murderer can show regret, have a life, try to make amends. Everyone should have a chance at redemption; it isn't something we can deny them of. Why? Because I would like a chance if I was in their shoes. I honestly would not be able to choose between them. It isn't just because of my moral code. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually cannot point at someone and say "they deserve life more than that person". We can run your dilemma millions upon billions of times and no matter what A and B are, I will always choose C.

Then I'm afraid at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind while there are no crimes that are technically unredeemable, any murderer who was truly regretful would accept death in place of the other person and therefore perhaps be redeemed. Child murderers are very close to the point where one is unredeemable and unless they either killed themselves for justice or dedicated the rest of their life to doing right, then that stain will never leave their soul. Under my morality young children are always morally more valuable than anyone-else and so I'd expect not only any adult to prioritise a child and give them extra care, but to also willingly make the ultimate sacrifice if need be. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually could not make any other choice. I understand the reason behind your morality but I reject the notion that all people are equal in value and while I'm not perfect, I'll judge it as best I can.

 

[The Funslinger]

Just align your morals to mine!

Piracy is fine, but so are the repercussions for piracy
Murder is wrong, unless motivated by revenge! (eye for an eye, not because they finished the milk and left the empty carton in the fridge)
Rape IS bad (Badong even)
Child Rape is the worst (It is not only a violent transgression but a destruction of innocence and future potential)
Tax evasion is bad because it is pathetic (It's only money. you don't support your government? Then be a man and try to overthrow them, not commit fraud)

Murders and rape cannot be equated to each other: how many apples equal the flavour of one orange? (to use a tired cliche)

Also rape is far worse than murder because it is degrading and humiliating. Death is inevitable and even when murdered you can at least die well.

Yeah, at least when you're dead you don't have to live through it.

Anyway, a lot of these things are different and incomparable. Another thing that needs to be taken into account is current social acceptability. Killing for the right reasons, and glorification of combat and death have been socially acceptable for thousands of years. Though some people are gradually changing this, even to a fault. (You know it's bad when soldiers are actually demonized by some people, which I HAVE seen) another example is rape and looting. When, let's say the hordes of Mongol raided a city; it was perfectly acceptable (nay, encouraged) for them to take what they could carry, and find a nice woman to carry off. Times have changed, and discipline is more enforced. If something like that happened now, millions of people would howl for the offending soldier's blood, and rightly so. Back then, it was just the same path of logic that was highlighted by people like Caesar (who wasn't prejudiced, and was quite even handed, even when brutal) who said that the victors of war can impose any conditions they like on the losing side.

Changes may be seen as common sense by those walking after, but there are things going on now that people argue infringe on our freedoms. People will have thought much the same when people called an end to rape and pillaging in wartime. I, myself agree and disagree with various issues that may soon change with social acceptability.

Really, it's up to you to take stock of the world around you and draw your own line. People can teach you, but nobody can make the decision for you.

 

[crudus]

I think this is winding down. Let's just tie off a few loose ends and part ways.

I'm surprised by the highness of that figure, guess some of those must be goldfish owners! If she had been an adult then risking her life would have been her own choice but I'll be damned if I let an 8 or 9 year old girl risk getting injured for the sake of a cat I don't frankly give a shit about.

Yeah, we were too. I think all of our guesses were 50-60 percent. The highest guess was 72 percent I think. Anyway you were charged with supervising the kids, not the pets. I am not really criticizing your decision. It is just an interesting piece of information that related.

Agreed, we have deviated from the original point somewhat. Taking the victim's past into account wouldn't make much of a difference though, and shouldn't at-all if the murderer was unaware of that past. The only case I can think of it where it perhaps should make a difference is if the victim has somehow terribly wronged the murderer or someone close to them, then that might be mitigating factor depending on what actually happened.

Well, I made the point as a rebuttal to "it is better for someone to murder a 92-year-old than a 20-year-old". The way I imagined it was a judge saying "You murdered someone who was 114-years-old?! In light of that, 3-5 years in prison. Thanks for getting him off of the road". Murder is murder no matter who you murder.

Well I don't live in the U.S. (I'm British) so that definition doesn't affect me unless I go on holiday to there. My definition is "the deliberate killing of a person without justification", the pretty much the same as the law, though I might stretch "justification" to include revenge in certain circumstances such as a rapist or murderer getting away without being punished.

I was just using the US as a baseline. I didn't want you to accept it, but just to get us to agree to a common definition. Throwing around terms doesn't mean anything if you don't agree what they mean. Also the law doesn't cover revenge as an acceptable reason to kill people. Revenge isn't about justice, just satisfaction. In the states (I can't say how it is up there), revenge killing is frowned upon by the media and general public(pretty much thanks to the media).

I agree with the golden rule, which is why I believe that moral justice must be enforced. If someone commits a great wrong they must be punished, that doesn't make me a hypocrite as unlike them I had a valid reason.

I can guarantee that if you ask any murderer, they will say they had a valid reason too(or that they are innocent).

I would only resort to vigilantism if the justice system had already failed since a proper system is far better than anything else, but I could never rest if I knew someone who had committed a wrong against someone I love was still at large and unpunished. I also see the idea of the revenge seeker as aesthetically beautiful, a person with one clear goal in their mind, motivated by love to aim like a homing missile towards the offender until they strike down like an angel of death upon them to dispel justice.

I find that kind of scary. Someone thinking they can just go around the law and do as they please is worrisome. The Punisher is a good comic and an interesting character, but I would be scared if there was someone doing that in real life.

 

[JoJo]

Well, I made the point as a rebuttal to "it is better for someone to murder a 92-year-old than a 20-year-old". The way I imagined it was a judge saying "You murdered someone who was 114-years-old?! In light of that, 3-5 years in prison. Thanks for getting him off of the road". Murder is murder no matter who you murder.

Assuming there aren't any other factors, you're right that murder is murder regardless of age, but that doesn't mean that some murders aren't worse than others.

I was just using the US as a baseline. I didn't want you to accept it, but just to get us to agree to a common definition. Throwing around terms doesn't mean anything if you don't agree what they mean. Also the law doesn't cover revenge as an acceptable reason to kill people. Revenge isn't about justice, just satisfaction. In the states (I can't say how it is up there), revenge killing is frowned upon by the media and general public(pretty much thanks to the media).

Revenge can be both satisfaction and justice, if done for the right reasons. Revenge killing is certainly frowned on by the media here too, as for general public that depends on their opinion on justice, the law doesn't like it which is probably a good thing otherwise it would be used too much.

I can guarantee that if you ask any murderer, they will say they had a valid reason too(or that they are innocent).

This is going to sound very subjective but by my definition most murderers don't have a valid reason. Killing a woman you just raped because you don't want her to report you isn't a valid reason, nor is stabbing a rival gang member because they "disrespected" you. The difference is that my reason is actually valid whereas theirs isn't. Technically I know that's just an opinion, but hey, I think I'm right.

I find that kind of scary. Someone thinking they can just go around the law and do as they please is worrisome. The Punisher is a good comic and an interesting character, but I would be scared if there was someone doing that in real life.

You can rest easy, the chances of me needing to take revenge in that way are very low and unless you intend to become a murderer or rapist, there's no reason I'd need to attack you in the first place! The law isn't always just as we have seen in Libya recently, thankfully in the UK most laws make sense so I'm generally a law-abiding citizen, however we should always consider our morals in relation to the law as being against the law doesn't automatically make something immoral.

I think this is winding down. Let's just tie off a few loose ends and part ways.

You are right, we've found out most of what we need to know, and to your credit your moral stances are by no means the worst I've seen, just a too idealistic perhaps.

 

[CulixCupric]

perspective of modern society. depends what you think "evil" is.