Saving a Life

[Rothene]

Hahaha...no.

Because it's still the same. The changes to the wording is decorative, it has no impactful change. You still 'condemn' someone to die by your choice on not saving that person. Keeping silent also makes one equally guilty...although nowhere near as strong as actively making a choice. It's one of those bizarre things about perception...

[Othin]

Hahaha...no.

Because it's still the same. The changes to the wording is decorative, it has no impactful change. You still 'condemn' someone to die by your choice on not saving that person. Keeping silent also makes one equally guilty...although nowhere near as strong as actively making a choice. It's one of those bizarre things about perception...

So you're saying keeping silent and allowing three to die, as opposed to speaking up and allowing only one to die, is somehow the lesser of two evils?

And you're right, it's precisely the same situation, regardless of the wording. That's my point.

[Celice]

So you're saying keeping silent and allowing three to die, as opposed to speaking up and allowing only one to die, is somehow the lesser of two evils?

The first forces the gunman--or any other external device than yourself--to be involved in the scenario. You are not forcing anyone, but the lack of partaking means that you as a viable actor are not valid. The external situation reacts to you as it would a log in the road.

The second directly pulls yourself into a responsible position--all events, good or bad, are tethered to you as a cause.

(please read Kant's essay on Truth if you can't grasp the concept)

Edited November 26, 2011 by Celice

[Othin]

The first forces the gunman--or any other external device than yourself--to be involved in the scenario. You are not forcing anyone, but the lack of partaking means that you as a viable actor are not valid. The external situation reacts to you as it would a log in the road.

The second directly pulls yourself into a responsible position--all events, good or bad, are tethered to you as a cause.

(please read Kant's essay on Truth if you can't grasp the concept)

So you're saying staying out of a situation you could have stopped absolves you from responsibility for it?

In that case, hello there, Joe Paterno.

[Celice]

In that case, hello there, Joe Paterno.

I wish you would think harder.

[Othin]

I wish you would think harder.

I've given your pitiful excuse for an argument every bit of thought it deserves.

If you wish to elaborate or to make a different argument, now is the time to do so.

[eclipse]

No. It's the same principal of "you choose who dies".

[Celice]

If you wish to elaborate or to make a different argument, now is the time to do so.

There is no "staying" out of the situation. In this experiment, all four subjects are brought together out of an absurdism, and have no back story. The only progressive step available is to become a part of the event by taking a course of action, or not participating, thus remaining as part of an absurdity to which you were born into innocently.

Joe Paterson has no synonym with this experiment because he was not in an innocent position. You cannot contrive the two together without just plain fucking up natural thought. Thus, "wish you would think harder." Paterson is an entirely different beast than this, because his existence is not unblemished by personal choice or absolution. In the experiment, there is no before or after--it is in its purest state, with no previous attachments to responsibility. To make a choice deviates from the passivity into responsibility.

Again, since you don't seem to grasp it, you may consider Kant's essay. If only for your own "pitiful excuse for an argument."

Edited November 26, 2011 by Celice

[Othin]

There is no "staying" out of the situation. In this experiment, all four subjects are brought together out of an absurdism, and have no back story. The only progressive step available is to become a part of the event by taking a course of action, or not participating, thus remaining as part of an absurdity to which you were born into innocently.

Joe Paterson has no synonym with this experiment because he was not in an innocent position. You cannot contrive the two together without just plain fucking up natural thought. Thus, "wish you would think harder." Paterson is an entirely different beast than this, because his existence is not unblemished by personal choice or absolution. In the experiment, there is no before or after--it is in its purest state, with no previous attachments to responsibility. To make a choice deviates from the passivity into responsibility.

Again, since you don't seem to grasp it, you may consider Kant's essay. If only for your own "pitiful excuse for an argument."

Paterno was passive in his role; he became responsible because he had the chance to protect children from being raped and did not take that chance. In this scenario, you become responsible because you have the chance to protect two people from being killed, and if you do not take that chance, it's at least as bad as what Paterno did. Passivity does not mean absolution from responsibility.

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you're so confident that Kant's essay will help your argument, provide relevant quotes. It is your job in a debate to complete your own argument.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Othin

[Celice]

I'm not going to do your work for you. If you're so confident that Kant's essay will help your argument, provide relevant quotes. It is your job in a debate to complete your own argument.

It's not to help me, it's so you can actually understand your mistake. I have no desire to correct your misunderstanding. That you don't bother to try makes a response to you worthless.

[Othin]

It's not to help me, it's so you can actually understand your mistake. I have no desire to correct your misunderstanding. That you don't bother to try makes a response to you worthless.

Sounds like that falls under "making your own argument clear", which is precisely your responsibility, and something you have clearly made absolutely no effort to do. If you are not willing to argue your point, then we're done here, and I hope you are willing to vacate the discussion so as to get out of the way of those of actually interested in discussing moral philosophy rather than your petty attempts to dance around every point.

[Parrhesia]

Furet, but you didn't save the baby's life. I'm playing the other side to all and any responses, so... humor me.

I CAN'T save the baby's life AND keep the more important people alive. The baby has no developed, two-way relationships beyond instinct. Nor does it have a developed personality. The adult? Has. And me, I KNOW I have, and I know people care about me, and I know one woman in my life who loves me. Besides, if it came down to it, I would kill the adult to save my life. That is, however, largely through fear, and I would feel guilty for it. But under no circumstances will I blame myself for either decision.

[Defeatist Elitist]

I CAN'T save the baby's life AND keep the more important people alive. The baby has no developed, two-way relationships beyond instinct. Nor does it have a developed personality. The adult? Has. And me, I KNOW I have, and I know people care about me, and I know one woman in my life who loves me. Besides, if it came down to it, I would kill the adult to save my life. That is, however, largely through fear, and I would feel guilty for it. But under no circumstances will I blame myself for either decision.

This.

If we play the game as the OP intends, then somebody has to die. In that case, there is no way I would feel bad for choosing the baby.

[Phoenix Wright]

A man with a gun kidnaps a baby, you, and an "average Joe." You know nothing about the baby, but you do know that the average Joe will work for the rest of his life supporting his family and has little to no time at all to put work into something else.

The man gives you the choice--he'll kill one of you three, whoever you tell him to, or he'll kill all of you if you don't give him an answer (in a half-hour). You are in an area where no one can help, and all people able to escape are tied, by rope, to a chair. Who he kills is truly up to you. He will not kill himself.

I didn't read most of the posts here, but Celice, are there ways to get out of this one? Or is the choice all yours? If so, what is your choice?

Edited November 27, 2011 by Phoenix Wright

[Tangerine]

I CAN'T save the baby's life AND keep the more important people alive. The baby has no developed, two-way relationships beyond instinct. Nor does it have a developed personality. The adult? Has. And me, I KNOW I have, and I know people care about me, and I know one woman in my life who loves me. Besides, if it came down to it, I would kill the adult to save my life. That is, however, largely through fear, and I would feel guilty for it. But under no circumstances will I blame myself for either decision.

"No two-way relationships beyond instinct"? I have to wonder if you have ever been around a baby. Babies are not emotionally void, nor are their emotions driven only by instinct. I absolutely assure you that every single baby has "a personality".

And even if you believe you can't have a two-way relationship without being able to speak or fully understand what it is, what makes a "two-way relationship" by your definition more important than the one that family has with their child? Is it more devastating for your people because of that? No. That family is going to cry just as much as yours. Neither of you are going to cry, you're dead. Your feelings for those people are irrelevant once you are dead.

We are not talking about a fetus here. I agree that the baby is less valuable than the adults, but absolutely not for the reasons you're suggesting. The only way this applies is with a VERY young child. Any baby over the age of 6 months is going to have very real emotional experiences.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Tangerine

[Celice]

Well, the choice still isn't ours because we have no way of guaranteeing that the gunman will honor our words. No matter what we choose, or not choose, is facilitated through the gunman. We're still truncations by his control of the situation.

As for whether there's ways out, it's not clear how the three of us are kidnapped. Or how the killer came into contact with a baby that hasn't shrieked the entire time. We don't know if the kidnappings are methodical, and the third and final hostage has finally been captured after a good amount of time, or if all three were suddenly within minutes ushered into a closet of some hotel. The psychological state of the gunman is in question--a long enough time stuck tending to a child, we don't know how that's affected him, and if he'd be willing to shoot the child. We don't know if he is or is not attached in any way, even by acquaintance, to the family of the child. Though us not knowing doesn't really change our ability to answer, it does affect whether the gunman will go through with the event.

If we all are ushered suddenly into a dark room, a gunshot isn't going to fly without attracting the attention of everything outside. We don't know how the gunman is going to react to that reality either, whether he thought about that, or if it's going to crash in on him suddenly, causing him to act recklessly.

If I'm put into the position (what is my choice,) I'd probably shoot the child as its life hasn't been drawn out. A short life full of apparent contentness is no life suffered. It also (not a direct advocation) spares the child from the burden of existing. In its early years it will likely have more luxury with little self-image causing one to develop reactions to existing--it'll just be a fun ride the entire time. While the man has the natural opportunity to have managed more meaningful relations in his existence that he'd like to continue experiencing.

Most people who make this choice are arguing for a sort of utilitarian viewpoint, in that if all three of us die, it is can be more impactful than if only one dies.

Edited November 27, 2011 by Celice

[Phoenix]

A man with a gun kidnaps a baby, you, and an "average Joe." You know nothing about the baby, but you do know that the average Joe will work for the rest of his life supporting his family and has little to no time at all to put work into something else.

The man gives you the choice--he'll kill one of you three, whoever you tell him to, or he'll kill all of you if you don't give him an answer (in a half-hour). You are in an area where no one can help, and all people able to escape are tied, by rope, to a chair. Who he kills is truly up to you. He will not kill himself.

Ah, this makes my original answer even simpler. I noticed people*coughTangcough* saying you don't always know what you'll do in a given situation until it actually happens, but in this version of the question, any factor that could alter my decision's not present. Same answer. I sacrifice myself.

[Original Alear]

It's not to help me, it's so you can actually understand your mistake. I have no desire to correct your misunderstanding. That you don't bother to try makes a response to you worthless.

Sorry, but even if I google search for "Kant's essay on truth" I don't get back any responses, and it's not clear what essay you are even referring to. So it's you who's being unreasonable by making references to another man's argument which can't even be easily referred to and expecting Othin to consult that argument, and come to the same understanding of it that you have.

I did so a short time earlier in the topic, but it was a tongue-in-cheek reference that I didn't actually expect Kay to look up, and an understanding of most of my post doesn't require an understanding of that one line.

That family is going to cry just as much as yours.

More like "we don't know how much people are going to cry, and how much they're going to cry is irrelevant."

Your feelings for those people are irrelevant once you are dead.

That's the point of view of someone all-to-confident that what is not known is not extant...who's to say that the dead don't have relevance?

Realistically, there's any number of ways of valuing human life, and all of them are viable, or rather none of them are viable (each human life has infinite-annulled value).

However, to continue Celice's reflections on the utilitarian nature of the decision making...I am reminded of A Civil Action...that early part of the movie, where Jan Schlictmann reflects that a man in his 30s in a professional, high wage career guarantees the best kind of damage returns in a lawsuit. It does seem like a fair number of the posters are weighing first against their own deaths and then against the death of the man, perhaps on this sort basis.

Edited November 27, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[Celice]

Sorry, but even if I google search for "Kant's essay on truth" I don't get back any responses, and it's not clear what essay you are even referring to. So it's you who's being unreasonable by making references to another man's argument which can't even be easily referred to and expecting Othin to consult that argument, and come to the same understanding of it that you have.

An inability for others to find resources doesn't make me unreasonable. Blaming the professor for mentioning a title, and you can't find that title, doesn't make the professor unreasonable. What it does say is the resource is convoluted somewhere down the line.

As you probably could guess, the title can get lost in translation, which can cause some people to know the resource by one name, but Google to know it by another. Most of my books are locked away in a cupboard, but I was able to find (with little effort) mentions of his essay on ye olde Google. Some translations sum up the essay by it being about lying, some by it being about truth.

http://www.philosophyblog.com.au/immanuel-kant-and-the-supposed-right-to-lie-to-murderers-from-benevolence/

From this, one of the better known titles have been translated as 'On a Supposed Right to Tell Lies from Benevolent Motives.' This wasn't the title of it in my resource, as the size is so small (and its nature as a response), that it's often giving summary titles and lumped into anthologies like it was nothing :/

Edited November 27, 2011 by Celice

[Aere]

Phoenix, you put the question best, so far. In real life, there would be the variables Celice suggests, but this isn't real life. Those variables are null.

[Original Alear]

An inability for others to find resources doesn't make me unreasonable. Blaming the professor for mentioning a title, and you can't find that title, doesn't make the professor unreasonable. What it does say is the resource is convoluted somewhere down the line.

I'm thankful you referred to a professor as your standard: I've almost never had a professor ask me or a class to read a text without providing copious information on the text: ISBN #, author, publication date (or copyright date?), except when I was in the professor's office and getting a private reference: at which point I received the book from the professor himself, or in one instance where I wanted a series of optional books on economics to read and the professor provided me with a list of merely names and authors, no other info. And many schools have bookstores too, meaning that purchasing the books doesn't even require ordering the book online. If a professor just gave vague info on a text and expected me to guess what he was talking about, I'd expect me, and for that matter the rest of the class, to be "up in arms" about it. It's not how any sort of discussion should go forth.

You weren't unreasonable for not finding the text: you were unreasonable for not finding the text for another person while expecting that other person else to guess what you were talking about and read it and refusing/showing your inability to summarize it or explain its relevance.

Per the essay, which I found on http://oll.libertyfu...=html&Itemid=27, I found nothing that really justifies what you said in the latter quoted material, which I have taken the time to disagree with. I mean, it's sort of related-by-analogy, but that was specific to an (utterly unjustified) duty the writer had to veracity above the ends, the consequences that veracity, or lack of it, had on the lives of himself or others. And that's only argued for truth - there's nothing similar argued for a situation like this, and you can't just assume that the same holds true. Moreover, just because Kant says its true doesn't justify that it was. Hell, in my mind even the argument for the duty to truth in all things is just plain laughable. And it's not just me - the SCOTUS upheld the right to lie outside of the courts - probably because the alternative would be impossibly annoying to adjudicate in all circumstances, and would sometimes conflict with the general sense of morality. The essay's point of view is perhaps limited by its narrow point of view, but its quite possible that it made the laughable and naive error of mistaking the truth that the court requires, on pain of penalty of perjury, being told to the court - a fairly obvious politics of power, to ensure that the courts have the information necessary to deliver accurate judgments and to allow punishment to those who don't acknowledge the courts - as a moral duty to tell the truth in all circumstances.

The first forces the gunman--or any other external device than yourself--to be involved in the scenario. You are not forcing anyone, but the lack of partaking means that you as a viable actor are not valid. The external situation reacts to you as it would a log in the road.

The second directly pulls yourself into a responsible position--all events, good or bad, are tethered to you as a cause.

This is just prioritizing the act over the outcome, as though the act had meaning outside of what results. If stabbing someone brought about no death or pain, and the body functioned just as well with some blood loss and injury to thought-to-be-vital organs as it did without the injury, it would cease to be an immoral act - so to with this, what matters is the outcome, not the means by which it is brought to bear. A person will die either way: the intervention of your choice allows the least possible subjective harm to be done. The outcome is the determining factor, not the assignation of responsibility for the outcome. As I said, inaction is action. If you have any reason to value one human life over another, and believe that to be the best possible metric for valuing the person's life, then the best possible choice you can make is to preserve that person's (those persons') lives at the expense of the least valuable (according to your own judgment) life. If you do not believe that life can ever be valued, then the participation in the evil act is nullified due to the certainty of the evil act being committed in this nonreal circumstance of certainties, assuming that the madman will kill one of you without intervention - if he's going to kill all three, then you've actually committed a good act by intervening and choosing only one to die! Whether a choice is made or no choice is made is equally correct, because there's not a difference in the outcome that results. If I had the option, I'd ask for the gun myself to ensure a point-blank shot to my own head.

Now if you were to say that you were not going to kill someone in the hopes that the madman would have a crisis of faith and wouldn't kill anyone after all, that would make sense to me up until Aere's assurances that that won't happen or the point where the madman threatens to kill all three of you if you don't comply with killing one (to bring things to the bargaining table). But not doing it because of your fear of your responsibility is just foolish when your action won't change the results, especially if you are the kind who is capable of valuing some lives over others and believes there is a least-bad death.

Edited November 27, 2011 by BlueMartianKitty

[eclipse]

If it's something that's by someone who's written a lot, and isn't in English (on an English-speaking forum), it would be nice if you cited your source.

If it's something that's well-known, and doesn't require translation (say, The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe), the other person can find it.

[Original Alear]

If it's something that's by someone who's written a lot, and isn't in English (on an English-speaking forum), it would be nice if you cited your source.

If it's something that's well-known, and doesn't require translation (say, The Raven by Edgar Allan Poe), the other person can find it.

Wouldn't it still be nice if you provided a link in the latter case?

[eclipse]

It would, but a quick Wikipedia search returns the entire poem.

[Phoenix Wright]

There's a concept called the "burden of proof."

If I have trouble understanding an argument for whatever reason, I usually just look up things myself, because most things are truly easy to find. If someone can't find what they're looking for then it's up to the original poster to give that person the information. That's what Celice did, I believe (eventually).

It doesn't matter how "easy" it is to find, or how well-known it is. If I cite the Declaration of Independence to support an argument of some sort, and someone can't find it, I need to show them what I'm talking about.