ATAR Notes: Forum
General Discussion => General Discussion Boards => Rants and Debate => Topic started by: WhoTookMyUsername on December 03, 2011, 09:33:42 pm
-
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/mxzgd/you_have_the_power_to_cure_the_most_horrible/
-
We were taught a variety of ethical theories in school, utilitarianism being among them. Although sacrificing the baby does appear to be the most logical choice, the funny thing about ethics is they don't have to be logical.
For me, the choice would depend on my degree of knowledge and/or involvement in the production of the cure. If I had no knowledge that the child would die as a result of me finding the cure then sure, I'd be able to go ahead with it. However, I don't think I could personally bring myself to kill someone, innocent or not, deliberately.
You can argue the whole, "Well, you're killing all those people who don't get the cure", but you'd be wrong. I am not killing them, the disease is. In not finding the cure, I am not killing them anymore than I am those starving children in Africa to whom I am unable to donate food.
You can argue I am being naive/rash/unfair/unrealistic. Perhaps, but to deliberately and forcefully murder someone is something I could not possibly do. It's the same reason I'm in staunch opposition to capital punishment.
-
We were taught a variety of ethical theories in school, utilitarianism being among them. Although sacrificing the baby does appear to be the most logical choice, the funny thing about ethics is they don't have to be logical.
Morality shouldn't be governed by logic. Morality should be seen by what is consciously most correct to ourselves and for others. Otherwise our life would be rendered futile and mundane like robots and computer. Too bad for us, we've been bestowed upon us the ability to emotionally consider actions and consequences.
For me, the choice would depend on my degree of knowledge and/or involvement in the production of the cure. If I had no knowledge that the child would die as a result of me finding the cure then sure, I'd be able to go ahead with it. However, I don't think I could personally bring myself to kill someone, innocent or not, deliberately.
The question specifically asks "You have the power," the cure is thrust upon your hands but at a large consequence in the lost of a life. Your inaction would consequently lead to the deaths of many people. The situation vests upon you to a responsibility, whether you take it or not is the question.
You can argue I am being naive/rash/unfair/unrealistic. Perhaps, but to deliberately and forcefully murder someone is something I could not possibly do. It's the same reason I'm in staunch opposition to capital punishment.
Why can't a child's life be sacrificed. In scientific experiments, lab rats are used, and I'm sure there are many other animals that are tested against their will? Are they seen as less valuable than intelligent life forms like human beings, of course not. And yet, we persist in abusing them. Narrowing in the example of the Rat, they are also intelligent creatures that feel pain, emotion and impending death. Why is the lost in the life of a rat any different to the lost of a human being. But instead, if we kill a child for the pursuit of a greater cause? Then so be it. We already do it already with animals, who we deem as inferior. Inadvertantly, we have already committed the crime. We subconsciously already allow such acts, willing ourselves to become ignorant in pursuit for science/medicine.
-
Morality shouldn't be governed by logic. Morality should be seen by what is consciously most correct to ourselves and for others. Otherwise our life would be rendered futile and mundane like robots and computer. Too bad for us, we've been bestowed upon us the ability to emotionally consider actions and consequences.
This is exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying that although the utilitarian approach is the most logical, it is not one that fully considers the emotional consequences of such an action.
The question specifically asks "You have the power," the cure is thrust upon your hands but at a large consequence in the lost of a life. Your inaction would consequently lead to the deaths of many people. The situation vests upon you to a responsibility, whether you take it or not is the question.
Just because one has the power does not mean they have the obligation to exercise it. Using my prior example, you have the power to go to Africa and volunteer your time/money to help impoverished communities. Are the lives of those dying because you chose not to go your responsibility? Hardly.
Why can't a child's life be sacrificed. In scientific experiments, lab rats are used, and I'm sure there are many other animals that are tested against their will? Are they seen as less valuable than intelligent life forms like human beings, of course not. And yet, we persist in abusing them. Narrowing in the example of the Rat, they are also intelligent creatures that feel pain, emotion and impending death. Why is the lost in the life of a rat any different to the lost of a human being. But instead, if we kill a child for the pursuit of a greater cause? Then so be it. We already do it already with animals, who we deem as inferior. Inadvertantly, we have already committed the crime. We subconsciously already allow such acts, willing ourselves to become ignorant in pursuit for science/medicine.
And here's where we disagree. I do not place the life of an animal (non-human) on the same level as that of a human. The crux of the argument you are making here seems to be that animals are sacrificed therefore humans should be to. By the same token then, we eat animals, should we not eat humans? The value of the life of a rat is much less than that of a human in my opinion. Yes, we should make every effort to ensure that the way we treat animals is ethical, but no, we should not apply the same ethical code to both humans and animals (non-humans).
-
This is exactly what I'm arguing. I'm saying that although the utilitarian approach is the most logical, it is not one that fully considers the emotional consequences of such an action.
We're on the same page here.
Just because one has the power does not mean they have the obligation to exercise it. Using my prior example, you have the power to go to Africa and volunteer your time/money to help impoverished communities. Are the lives of those dying because you chose not to go your responsibility? Hardly.
"You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do? (This was on a friend's final.)" The scale of importance makes going to Africa to help impoverished communities completely irrelevant. This is saving humanity by the hundreds of millions. You are the only person who in the entire world who has this sort of power, it seriously puts forth the significance of this responsibility. The value in the circumstances of the "cure" and the "African community cannot be compared. They are in totally different universes. Even then, for any "normal" human being, the guilt will ride you forever, for not undertaking or considering an action to such an enormity as this. As I have said before, taking action or not action, is a subset of responsibility. But to be completely disregarding is a large concern. Yes, granted, you can dismiss, not consider upon this issue, and have no obligation, but is this truly the pursuit you want to take? Cowardice I say.
And here's where we disagree. I do not place the life of an animal (non-human) on the same level as that of a human. The crux of the argument you are making here seems to be that animals are sacrificed therefore humans should be to. By the same token then, we eat animals, should we not eat humans? The value of the life of a rat is much less than that of a human in my opinion. Yes, we should make every effort to ensure that the way we treat animals is ethical, but no, we should not apply the same ethical code to both humans and animals (non-humans).
Let me dissect this for you.
I do not place the life of an animal (non-human) on the same level as that of a human.
I agree, and this is the reason why we are omnivores. We eat animals, we abuse animals and we treats animals as lesser species. This is sadly the state of our world - in a majority sense.
The crux of the argument you are making here seems to be that animals are sacrificed therefore humans should be to
Here, the question poses "One human" as it has stated "cost of killing a single innocent child." Now, lets put the assumption that it only takes "one child" to find the cure, and remove all the ambiguities that science fruitfully creates or discovers. To sacrifice a single child for a greater cause that will lead on to a benefit that lasts for eternity, the trade off is in one way or another, understandable.
If we consider the value in the life of a rat much less than that of a human, then how many rats does it take to equal the life of a human then? There must be a figure value for life, no? But this is not the main concern I am trying to tackle here. The concern here is that, either way you look at it, we already sacrifice "life" for medical science. And in this case, it is a large breakthrough that can lead the human species to greater heights in terms of longevity and other benefits that such cures can manifest. One life for science's advancement - what a bargain! We already do it with so many other animals already. Come On! Take a kid in the middle of China or India. Make sure no one knows about it, cover it up with no media, everything will be perfectly fine like we do with all the experimentally tested animals.
Yes, we should make every effort to ensure that the way we treat animals is ethical, but no, we should not apply the same ethical code to both humans and animals (non-humans).
I am not saying that animals and humans should co-exist with one another in a utopia, but I am saying that if animals can feel pain, physically and emotionally as us, a child in many respects is similar to animals (non-humans). Therefore, in many ways, there is parallels that can be seen. If many animals are sacrificed for science, surely a child, merely nothing in a world of a few billion people can be sacrificed for the pursuit of science - one child like speck of rice.
As I have said before, we have inadvertently committed the crime, of sacrificing life for science. Sacrificing one more, in this case, a human being, for the benefit of society is something to seriously consider as a most likely alternative.
-
as long as I could choose the child's mode of death, yes I would
-
i direct you guys to a rather old thread, but more specifically the link in the OP of that thread; http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBdfcR-8hEY, it's an extremely interesting set of Harvard Lectures full of discussing various moral scenarios built around the idea of justice, well worth a watch if you're interested and have some time on your hands
i would get involved into this discussion, but frankly after a week and a half of solid debating/adjudicating debates in two countries i'm kinda over arguing :P
-
"You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do? (This was on a friend's final.)" The scale of importance makes going to Africa to help impoverished communities completely irrelevant. This is saving humanity by the hundreds of millions. You are the only person who in the entire world who has this sort of power, it seriously puts forth the significance of this responsibility. The value in the circumstances of the "cure" and the "African community cannot be compared. They are in totally different universes. Even then, for any "normal" human being, the guilt will ride you forever, for not undertaking or considering an action to such an enormity as this. As I have said before, taking action or not action, is a subset of responsibility. But to be completely disregarding is a large concern. Yes, granted, you can dismiss, not consider upon this issue, and have no obligation, but is this truly the pursuit you want to take? Cowardice I say.
Are you aware how many people actually die of starvation each year? Approximately 6 million children (not people) die each year of starvation. You're also acting as if finding the cure equates to people receiving the cure. This is not the case and should be stressed. Just because I find a cure/prevention doesn't mean that those who need it will have access to it. Take malaria for example. We have had vaccinations/cures for malaria for many years and yet it is still one of the leading causes of death. Yes, I understand that the guilt would probably haunt me for the rest of my life, but that doesn't mean that I should let that rule my decision. I am not dismissing the choice I have, merely saying that it is not my obligation to kill this child. Just like you are not obligated to help starving children in Africa. This was where my analogy came in.
stuff on animals
(can't be bothered copying and pasting)
And here once again is where we disagree. To me it wouldn't matter how many animals you sacrificed, it would never equal a human life. You could kill 1 billion, even 1 trillion of any animal, wipe it into extinction, and its life would not equate to that of a human. I simply cannot place the sacrifice of animal (non-human) life no matter to what scale, on the same level as the sacrifice of a human life.
-
Skimmed through (Cant be stuffed reading through everyones posts sorry!), and i think we're missing the point here:
You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
Wouldn't you just kill the child (who is innocent of course), who is suffering from the disease and is on the brink of death anyways? -Assuming you have the choice of which child you kill!
If you can't assume.. then heres my opinion:
It'd merely be martyrdom. Newspaper headings would read: "The innocent child who was killed for the sake of many more to come, and possibly for the survival of mankind" . It's like war. think of ww1 and ww2.. did soldiers get killed for a reason? Most of the time - yes. were they innocent ? -Yes! they were compelled to sign up. They sacrificed their life for something, and that something is what makes our civilisation as it is today. Back to the child - this child can be sacrificed for something as well. Something that will not only make things a lot different (prevent future disease, downfall of humanity..etc) , but will in turn create happiness for those suffering from disease all over the world. I'm not gonna drag on, cause I'm hoping you catch my drift now!
Think in the parents perspective however, and things get a bit more emotional. Your only child, who hasn't done anything wrong in their life holds the key to perhaps .. humanity. Would you let them be killed for the cure ? Now, considering the parents and child have an immensely strong relationship.. things get even more emotional. What to do..?
1) Prepare them for a clone. 8)
OR
2) Accept the offer - since inevitably, its for the better.. for you, and for your future family.
OR
3) Decline the offer, since you love your child too much. (but ahh.. just saying, wouldnt some maniac set out to murder the kid if you did say no? :o )
the end..
xo
-
humans are animals.
Essentially yes, but we are the only species capable of perceiving and holding awareness of our consciousness, which makes us separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.
-
humans are animals.
Essentially yes, but we are the only species capable of perceiving and holding awareness of our consciousness, which makes us separate from the rest of the animal kingdom.
What about extremely mentally disabled people? Do we relegate them to 'animal' status too then?
-
What about extremely mentally disabled people? Do we relegate them to 'animal' status too then?
Well not according to the UN. I guess it's difficult to really distinguish between different levels of animal if you do it purely on mental ability, because you have a pretty big sliding scale. Those that are mentally disabled are afforded the same level of "humanity" because we draw a ideological delineation (yay big words) rather than a practical one. So yeah, it's arbitrary but we afford ourselves rights because we define ourselves as the higher creatures. The fact that we can do that, is probably most of the reason.
-
What about extremely mentally disabled people? Do we relegate them to 'animal' status too then?
Well not according to the UN. I guess it's difficult to really distinguish between different levels of animal if you do it purely on mental ability, because you have a pretty big sliding scale. Those that are mentally disabled are afforded the same level of "humanity" because we draw a ideological delineation (yay big words) rather than a practical one. So yeah, it's arbitrary but we afford ourselves rights because we define ourselves as the higher creatures. The fact that we can do that, is probably most of the reason.
So we define ourselves as the higher creatures, therefore we are higher creatures? But surely definition and ideological delineation is subject to context - hypothetically, in a different world, black people are considered a lower class, and the death of a black person is probably equivalent to the death of a dog. Or a Jewish person for that matter. Is that ok?
-
What if the child was Hitler? BAM
-
What if the child was Hitler? BAM
I am Hitler reincarnated /offtopic
-
The question never specified the identity of the child but I digress
Well, it would be like 'killing child Hitler' plus saving millions from some sort of cancer, a double whammy. In that context, I would kill the child instantly cause I am awesome
-
everything is more beautiful because we're doomed
-
I love it how my post just got ignored hahaha..
it wasnt that badd was it;p
-
I love it how my post just got ignored hahaha..
it wasnt that badd was it;p
I did read it, though the question it poses is one that is quite standard to utilitarianism discussions. :P
Utilitarianism in its extreme essentially comes down to cold logic vs humanity. There is no good position in this debate.
-
I love it how my post just got ignored hahaha..
it wasnt that badd was it;p
I did read it, though the question it poses is one that is quite standard to utilitarianism discussions. :P
The question essentially comes down to cold logic vs humanity. There is no position in this debate.
I think that's an oversimplification - even within "cold logic" and "humanity", there are a myriad of positions one could take. Utilitarianism, for instance, has several different forms (preference utilitarianism, classical utilitarianism, etc.), and often what we take to mean as "humanity" can really be reduced to something akin to utilitarianism (weighing up costs vs benefits) as well. What is "humanity", for instance?
-
yep, if we couldn't make decisions according to logic, this world would have descended into anarchy long ago - but does that mean we're "robots?" - no. Careful of the connotation (1st response). Utilizing logic and reasoning should not mean we are associated with "cold blooded, heartless beings."
No, but when logic becomes the sole factor in determining choices, this is where we are lead.
Also,
I did read it, though the question it poses is one that is quite standard to utilitarianism discussions.
Utilitarianism in its extreme essentially comes down to cold logic vs humanity. There is no good position in this debate.
This is essentially what I was trying to argue against Water when we had our little debate in chat ;D
-
You would of course kill the baby, what sort of moral crossroad are you guys finding yourself at? Weighing up the lives taken by this said "horrible disease" or the single life of a baby, of which people emphasize 100x more than a grown person.
It's completely ridiculous, the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option.
edit: I'm always posting in topics that have many pages... and I never read everyone else's comments, I beat what I said was stated in everyone's post :D
-
Two things:
ONE:
Killing an innocent child? ARE YOU CRAZY? Yess, okay, people wouldn't die from cancer etc., but wouldn't you feel guilty about something which hasn't yet been corrupted by all the shit in the world? A child has the potential to grow into someone amazing, and also, WHAT IF THE CHILD WAS YOURS?? Would you still kill he/she to save others? Yes, I may be selfish and a crazy cat lady etc., but sometimes diseases are there to do bring out the best in people. If there were no diseases there would be no doctors, pharamacists etc., so life wouldn't be worth living for some.
Also, the death of the child means that there would be unnecessary sadness and pain in the world. There is nothing worse than being told that someone you love has died. :'(
TWO:
Hitler: OUCH! Although he wasn't the most, well, great person alive, at least in retrospective we learnt a lesson from him, right? And also, we can't be too mean on him right? Yes, millions died because of him( and that was really horrible), but he was still a human, and we should treat him like one.
s.
-
Two things:
ONE:
Killing an innocent child? ARE YOU CRAZY? Yess, okay, people wouldn't die from cancer etc., but wouldn't you feel guilty about something which hasn't yet been corrupted by all the shit in the world? A child has the potential to grow into someone amazing, and also, WHAT IF THE CHILD WAS YOURS?? Would you still kill he/she to save others? Yes, I may be selfish and a crazy cat lady etc., but sometimes diseases are there to do bring out the best in people. If there were no diseases there would be no doctors, pharamacists etc., so life wouldn't be worth living for some.
Also, the death of the child means that there would be unnecessary sadness and pain in the world. There is nothing worse than being told that someone you love has died. :'(
TWO:
Hitler: OUCH! Although he wasn't the most, well, great person alive, at least in retrospective we learnt a lesson from him, right? And also, we can't be too mean on him right? Yes, millions died because of him( and that was really horrible), but he was still a human, and we should treat him like one.
s.
Oh shit, this bitch is crazy. :P
The absence of disease would spell job lose of the people that fight to maximize human wellbeing? You're actually being a conservationist of medical treatment when there is the potential to extinguish human suffering, that does not make sense.
If the baby was my own, I'd have to. There would be no hesitation, it would pain me to do but I'd of course have to do it. I'd also probably follow doing this with killing myself. The same would go if I had to kill myself in exchange of curing the same disease.
The thing about a baby being uncorrupted is completely absurd, and also puts my previous post's CASE IN POINT.
I foresee the lose of my single respect point with this point.
-
Thanks for calling me a bitch.
Obviously you haven't dealt with someone close to you dying.
oh, and giveup, I am a female.
s.
-
oh, and giveup, I am a female.
>"the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option."
>"bitch"
>"CASE IN POINT"
>female gender symbol on your post
I was fully aware.
Obviously you haven't dealt with someone close to you dying.
Calling you a bitch was followed by the emoticon with the tongue sticking out ( :P), implying I wasn't all too serious.
And I don't see how dealing with someone who was close to dying would change my opinion in anyway, would it make me appreciate the strength that comes from having a life ripped apart? (as you had said)
-
It's completely ridiculous, the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option.
oh please, do me a favour -_-
-
okay, well:
say that you have just killed your child to save nations dying.
unless you have no conscience at all, you would feel at least some sort of waste and pain, right?? (please tell me guys have feelings too :)
ALSO:
Murder is considered breaking a law right, so even if you save all those people, you would still go to jail, and have to reflect on the fact that you KILLED SOMEONE.
s.
-
Kill 1 to save millions
Yeah I'd feel bad but I wouldn't be satan by any means
-
It's completely ridiculous, the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option.
oh please, do me a favour -_-
Do you see a boy nurturing a plastic baby, as you see with girls?
Although, primal wasn't the right word...I suppose it's a psychological trait that ensures that offspring are well taken care of?
okay, well:
say that you have just killed your child to save nations dying.
unless you have no conscience at all, you would feel at least some sort of waste and pain, right?? (please tell me guys have feelings too :)
ALSO:
Murder is considered breaking a law right, so even if you save all those people, you would still go to jail, and have to reflect on the fact that you KILLED SOMEONE.
s.
The personal repercussions are irrelevant. Let's say that with curing the disease, the knowledge of the diseases existence were to also disappear. This is probably a better question as your actions by those around you are not understood, and you're now the maniacal person saying you killed a baby in order to cure a disease.
It seems psychopathic to say: "yeah, I'd kill a baby".
But would you rather personally be accountable for each death to that disease here on after?
-
Like someone said earlier, this is a case of cold logic vs. human emotions. Now with regards to the child in question: your level of emotional connection to the child is proportional to your stance on the issue. Higher emotional subjectivity favours the child's life and wellbeing, whereas emotional detachment renders the child's life little more significant than a fact; a statistic. There's no right or wrong answer here, because either option could be perceived as morally correct, depending on your stance. The key thing is that you have the decision to end the life of a child who would otherwise have lived, effectively making you a murderer if you choose to sacrifice the child. On the other hand, all those people contracting the horrible disease was something that just happened, unaffected by you and your choices. Those who are inclined to save the child (if it's a total stranger or a random child) do so because they can't bear to live with the guilt of having made the decision to rob that child of its life. Those who choose to kill the child can bear to shoulder the guilt, by reasoning that the child's life was not lost for no reason; that the lives they saved were worth it.
-
say that you have just killed your child to save nations dying.
unless you have no conscience at all, you would feel at least some sort of waste and pain, right?? (please tell me guys have feelings too :)
ALSO:
Murder is considered breaking a law right, so even if you save all those people, you would still go to jail, and have to reflect on the fact that you KILLED SOMEONE.
The suffering of the victim and the suffering of me (emotional + legal + whatever) is minuscule compared to the sum of all the suffering from people with the disease. I would do it, purely because my sacrifice (and that of a child) is outweighed by the good of the many.
When talking about utilitarianism, your own personal preference is as insignificant as any other single person, only the collective counts.
It makes perfect logical sense, but whether or not it is moral (because it violates the preference of that child), I don't think that question can be answered.
-
It's completely ridiculous, the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option.
oh please, do me a favour -_-
Do you see a boy nurturing a plastic baby, as you see with girls?
Although, primal wasn't the right word...I suppose it's a psychological trait that ensures that offspring are well taken care of?
as a female the closest thing I ever got to "nurturing a plastic baby" was pretending to do surgery on my Barbies
and yes I have seen little boys hugging dolls...
see, I can give anecdotal evidence too
-
"The personal repercussions are irrelevant."
That's rediculous.
Okay, fine. Say that the child is not yours, or mine or anyone else's in this debate. Let's say that the child belongs to nameless people in some nameless country, okay?
In this case, I wouldn't want to inflict pain on the parents: they would be sad, right. (if you retaliate by saying that by taking away diseases would take away the pain of so many other people, fine.)
Also, even if the parents didn't want/like their child, the child should be considered too, right?
s.
-
To: Bazza16
I have already stated that I am a selfish person in one of the posts above.
-
It's completely ridiculous, the funny thing being: many females, given their primal need to take care of an infant, would not choose this option.
oh please, do me a favour -_-
Do you see a boy nurturing a plastic baby, as you see with girls?
Although, primal wasn't the right word...I suppose it's a psychological trait that ensures that offspring are well taken care of?
as a female the closest thing I ever got to "nurturing a plastic baby" was pretending to do surgery on my Barbies
and yes I have seen little boys hugging dolls...
see, I can give anecdotal evidence too
You're kidding right? Because something is admit to exceptions, does not mean it is untrue... that is an assertoric observation.
You should probably think about how pretending to perform surgery would help you in a human social-construct 200,000 years ago. Get it?
-
Well, you're the one "backing up" your claim with rubbish arguments like "do you see a boy nurturing a plastic baby". Give me solid proof that "many" females have still not been able to overcome this "primal urge" with logic and rationality.
-
The personal repercussions are irrelevant
The entire basis for this ethical dilemma is that the personal repercussions ARE relevant. If they weren't, this debate would be non-existent. Logic tells us that it's better to kill one child to save many, but our humanity leads us to empathise with that child and their loved ones. Ultimately, it's playing God, and IMHO we don't have the right to pick or choose who lives or dies - that boils down to murder. The victims of this horrible disease contracted it by chance/circumstance, the child's life, however, is completely in your own hands.
Personally, I can't say what choice I'd make without actually being in that situation, there are so many factors that could affect my decision at the time, and ultimately, it's pretty difficult to predict your own actions in such a situation. In the safety of a hypothetical situation, your heart may be set on one answer, but when your plunged into a real life-or-death situation, things change.
-
It's also important to mark the distinction between what what happen in practice and whether that action is morally acceptable. Most people would choose the elimination of disease(s), but you don't have to believe you're making a moral choice in doing so. There's a very solid moral argument (in my eyes) that you can't justify taking the life of an individual, no matter the benefits. I tried to advance it in chat but it was summarily ignored. Human life isn't something you can quantify and compare between situations or, in reference to earlier in the thread, with animal life. You have to judge your action based on what the action is, not on what you can expect out of it; ie the end does not justify the means.
To better illustrate this, if you advocate the moral acceptability of killing one child to save a million then what's your stance on the Nazi human experiments? (yes it's somewhat of a strawman, but it's still relevant)
-
Well, you're the one "backing up" your claim with rubbish arguments like "do you see a boy nurturing a plastic baby". Give me solid proof that "many" females have still not been able to overcome this "primal urge" with logic and rationality.
We live in a world that by majority believes that the earth was created less than 10,000 years ago, there is a lack of logic and rationality. I did not say that a female's need to nurture a child at any cost was not admit to exceptions ;), but you can also admit that such exceptions are rarely the case. On a forum that seems to value evidence and rationality, it is the case.
-
To better illustrate this, if you advocate the moral acceptability of killing one child to save a million then what's your stance on the Nazi human experiments? (yes it's somewhat of a strawman, but it's still relevant)
Admittedly I know shit all about Utilitarianism, however, if the point of utilitarianism is to assign a value to human happiness and pain, surely one could still make an argument on utilitarian grounds that Nazi experimentation is unacceptable, considering that the pain experienced by the subjects grossly outweighed the benefits it produced.
-
Ok, people seem not to understand that this question doesn't really have a right or wrong answer. They look at this from a purely logical point of view (which is fine) and then say, well now you have to use logic to back up your statement. Fair enough, I will use proof.
There are several ethical theories on the way decisions should be made. Each theory explores a different method of analysing and approaching a moral dilemma. Using a variety of ethical procedures, I will justify my stance.
Natural Law
It is natural that people die of disease. In a world where the population growth is exponential and there are fears of demand on public resources soon exceeding supply, the repercussions of preventing the natural deaths of millions of people must be analysed. Yes, you may be saving the lives of many suffering from the disease but at what cost to their and other's quality of life?
Hedonism
Killing the child will only bring me emotional pain. The fact that I "saved" others is irrelevant as I would be directly responsible for this child's death. Not killing the child is the best way for me to avoid pain.
Ethical Egoism
Killing the child places me in a compromising position. I would have to deal with not only the family of the child (should they come to know) but the public. It would be wiser and much safer for me, both physically and emotionally, to let the child be. I am not directly involved in the deaths of those who suffer from the disease. Therefore, (in the eyes of the general populous) I have no societal obligation to help those suffering with the disease. My safest and best option is therefore to not kill the child and let the others be.
Relativism
In the society we live in, there is a strict taboo against murder; especially the murder of an infant. The overall consensus on morality of the society I live in dictates that I should not kill the child. Therefore, I shouldn't kill the child.
-
eh... nazi experimentation is unacceptable? there was no real benefit to t he wider population, and they basically tortured people against there will (were animals coudl have been used
Are you aware of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731. It irritates me to see people, and Australians particularly, talk about the Nazi's experimentations while the number of victims was so little compared to the Japanese's experimentation that took as many as 400,000 lives.
Considering they were the ones that were invading us (not the Nazis), and the ones that inflicted war atrocities upon us, Unit 731 is the warcrime that should be spoken about by Australians...
Completely off topic, I'm gonna gtfo of this thread now.
-
eh... nazi experimentation is unacceptable? there was no real benefit to t he wider population, and they basically tortured people against there will (were animals coudl have been used
Erm no, there was benefit to the wider population. They weren't just torturing people for kicks, they were doing research ("research") to benefit their regime. The most common two examples are the research they did into hypothermia and into altitude sickness/depressurization because those were relevant to the war effort (fighter planes crashing into the Atlantic, the Eastern Front etc.). There is a huge contemporary debate in scientific circles about the ethics of using the data gathered under those circumstances.
eg
Rascher used a decompression chamber to simulate high altitude conditions. He would often dissect several of the victims' brains, while they were still alive, to demonstrate that high altitude sickness was a result of the formation of tiny air bubbles in the blood vessels of the subarachnoid part of the brain.
If you don't like that, what about the Tuskagee studies? African Americans were essentially used as guinea pigs to develop better treatments for syphilis. If you're advocating that the end justifies the means, what's different here?
Are you aware of: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_731
Yeah I am, but their experiments are less well known. For simplicities sake, the Nazi ones are most relevant here.
-
Why isn't the stance taken by many people here, including myself, also taken for the use of torture?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/sam-harris/in-defense-of-torture_b_8993.html
tl;dr ... The ticking time bomb scenario, a man is knowingly going to kill many people if a code is not given. Is torture justified in saving thousands of innocent lives?
-
i don't understand the phrase "the ends justify the means." the means are part of the ends.
This is basically saying, it doesn't matter what we do to get to the final result, as long as the end result is reached.
eg. It doesn't matter if we brutally torture and maim a prisoner who has vital information, as long as we obtain the information.
The end, obtaining the information, justifies whatever process it took to get it (torture).
-
by "i don't understand" i meant i don't agree with the message it's conveying.
If you torture and maim a prisoner -> ends are a tortured and maimed prisoner and information
Are you being deliberately obtuse/pedantic?
-
I think he's just being annoying! :P
-
by "i don't understand" i meant i don't agree with the message it's conveying.
If you torture and maim a prisoner -> ends are a tortured and maimed prisoner and information
Are you being deliberately obtuse/pedantic?
yes, the circle way of getting to my point is: in this case (1 death) the "ends" is infinity - 1 death. It is not "ends justify the means (which is not always valid) as the means are part of the end
You either have really bad grammar or you just made us all dumber for reading that.
-
I have literally no idea what you're on about, so either make it clearer or actually respond to and discuss what I posted.
-
I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this? -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.
Like in my previous post i said:
Wouldn't you just kill the child (who is innocent of course), who is suffering from the disease and is on the brink of death anyways? -Assuming you have the choice of which child you kill!
----------------------------------------------------------
-
I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this? -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.
Welcome to AN Debating.
On topic:
Hypothetical situations always have so many "what ifs" attached which is why you can argue about them forever. Logic says to kill the single child to cure all diseases, but you have to ask yourselves what the world would be like without these diseases. Would there be such a population increase that drains the earths resources or even makes rarer diseases more common? Impossible to predict what will happen exactly if all these diseases were eliminated.
Personally I probably wouldn't for the reasons that funkyducky and Russ outlined (cbf explaining) but you can never tell unless you are actually in the situation...
-
If the child and the guardians are consensual then I'm struggling to find a reason not to do it
Even if the guardians are against it but the child is for it then I'd probably still be compelled to knock off the kid
But if the child says no, then his decision should be respected regardless of what the guardians want and I'm struggling to justify why I believe this :'(
-
What I've learnt today:
No one Only jane1234 pays attention to anything I post on these debate threads :(.
-
What I've learnt today: No one pays attention to anything I post on these debate threads :(.
:O You lie! I mentioned you in my post! :)
-
If the child and the guardians are consensual then I'm struggling to find a reason not to do it
Even if the guardians are against it but the child is for it then I'd probably still be compelled to knock off the kid
But if the child says no, then his decision should be respected regardless of what the guardians want and I'm struggling to justify why I believe this :'(
I'm sorry, but what child is willingly going to say; "Kill me", and have it be informed consent. There is no way the child could possibly understand the repercussions of such a decision.
-
Depends how old the child is, my brother is 8 and I just asked him this question, and he said he would willingly give his own life.
I guess it also depends on the person who is committing the act. If it were me, a child giving consent would be enough to justify the act imo
-
I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ?
The thread has also been Godwinned twice so it's all fair game
-
I dont know much about proper debating.. but like, arent you meant to meant to stick to the point sorta... ? the question was: You have the power to cure the most horrible diseases in all the world but at the cost of killing a single innocent child. What would you do?
where does nazi's and unit 1337 ? , and all these other things come into this? -- Just wondering out of curiosity, because i thought debating just involved .. having an opinion (relevant.. and simple), saying it, then disputing some one elses opinion.
Like in my previous post i said:
Wouldn't you just kill the child (who is innocent of course), who is suffering from the disease and is on the brink of death anyways? -Assuming you have the choice of which child you kill!
----------------------------------------------------------
Even if not presented the choice of which child (even if it is my own), even without consent (including those of the parents), I would go so far as to murdering the child if it means the disease(s) will be cured. I believe the suffering of the child, their family, and the guilt I will bear are far insignificant compared to disease(s).
For reasons Panicmode has said, people will disagree with this stance, some to minimize the pain of the self. When I said 'personal reprecussions are irrelevant', I mean the pain of the self (me) are insignificant compared to the good of the many. If it means I have to be the bad guy to make things better for everyone else, so be it.
-
Semantics... I'm sure we all get what they mean by saying that this is an ends justify the means question. Means: killing an innocent child. Ends: curing a horrid disease. Simple enough; is it justified to kill the child in order to save many?
Edit: "the ends" as a noun refers not to "the end result", but to the aim/goal/objective.
-
yes, but russ basically placed an unfair ultimatum: do you always agree that the ends justifies the means ? No. I don't. And the reason for this is the ramifications of the means often negatively outweighs the positive ramifications of the end.
And in this case, the means does not outweigh the ends, though the means are still in my thoughts.
But you understand now, that is your opinion. It is not fact. Therefore, there are really no right or wrong answers.
-
And the reason for this is the ramifications of the means often negatively outweighs the positive ramifications of the end.
Erm what? The whole point is that if that an action results in a net positive outcome then that action is justified. So, you've said that killing one child to eradicate disease is justified. I asked you if this meant you would also support other situations, such as torture to prevent terrorism and human experimentation to advance research and save lives.
Nobody has ever claimed that every action okay irrespective of the outcome...
-
yes, but russ basically placed an unfair ultimatum: do you always agree that the ends justifies the means ?
When did this happen? I can't seem to find anything that Russ posted that implies this.
Can we please get back on topic now?
-
Here is my opinion of this thread and of the posters (credit to username)
On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.
On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.
If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.
Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.
QUESTION: What should the brain do?
-
...I pick option no. 3
-
Here is my opinion of this thread and of the posters (credit to username)
On Twin Earth, a brain in a vat is at the wheel of a runaway trolley. There are only two options that the brain can take: the right side of the fork in the track or the left side of the fork. There is no way in sight of derailing or stopping the trolley and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows trolleys. The brain is causally hooked up to the trolley such that the brain can determine the course which the trolley will take.
On the right side of the track there is a single railroad worker, Jones, who will definitely be killed if the brain steers the trolley to the right. If the railman on the right lives, he will go on to kill five men for the sake of killing them, but in doing so will inadvertently save the lives of thirty orphans (one of the five men he will kill is planning to destroy a bridge that the orphans' bus will be crossing later that night). One of the orphans that will be killed would have grown up to become a tyrant who would make good utilitarian men do bad things. Another of the orphans would grow up to become G.E.M. Anscombe, while a third would invent the pop-top can.
If the brain in the vat chooses the left side of the track, the trolley will definitely hit and kill a railman on the left side of the track, "Leftie" and will hit and destroy ten beating hearts on the track that could (and would) have been transplanted into ten patients in the local hospital that will die without donor hearts. These are the only hearts available, and the brain is aware of this, for the brain knows hearts. If the railman on the left side of the track lives, he too will kill five men, in fact the same five that the railman on the right would kill. However, "Leftie" will kill the five as an unintended consequence of saving ten men: he will inadvertently kill the five men rushing the ten hearts to the local hospital for transplantation. A further result of "Leftie's" act would be that the busload of orphans will be spared. Among the five men killed by "Leftie" are both the man responsible for putting the brain at the controls of the trolley, and the author of this example. If the ten hearts and "Leftie" are killed by the trolley, the ten prospective heart-transplant patients will die and their kidneys will be used to save the lives of twenty kidney-transplant patients, one of whom will grow up to cure cancer, and one of whom will grow up to be Hitler. There are other kidneys and dialysis machines available, however the brain does not know kidneys, and this is not a factor.
Assume that the brain's choice, whatever it turns out to be, will serve as an example to other brains-in-vats and so the effects of his decision will be amplified. Also assume that if the brain chooses the right side of the fork, an unjust war free of war crimes will ensue, while if the brain chooses the left fork, a just war fraught with war crimes will result. Furthermore, there is an intermittently active Cartesian demon deceiving the brain in such a manner that the brain is never sure if it is being deceived.
QUESTION: What should the brain do?
Determine the net effects (or the probabilistic distribution of effects), parametrize weightings for each effect, choose the set that gives the best expected value of results.
Hardest part will be to parametrize. What number do you give to Hitler? What number do you give to curing cancer?
-
Morality shouldn't be governed by logic. Morality should be seen by what is consciously most correct to ourselves and for others. Otherwise our life would be rendered futile and mundane like robots and computer. Too bad for us, we've been bestowed upon us the ability to emotionally consider actions and consequences.
I think you are dichotomising something that need not be so. I would even go as far to call it a false dichotomy this logic versus humanity question. There is such a thing as intuition. Also, why cannot a humanist moral philosophy - which you seem to be alluding to - be based on a logical foundation? If everyone acted on their emotions, we would live in a very disorderly and irrational world.
Also, if you see this post:
- Natural Law
Hedonism
Ethical Egoism
Relativism
*Removed content of headings to save space in my post.
Panicmode does a lovely job of illustrating the moral differentiation between deontological and consequentialist strands or branches of moral theory. From a deontological position, we may feel we owe a duty to either a) the baby and to preserve its alleged innocence or b) to protect humanity at large or c) our own interests. Similarly, we could look at this consequentially and weigh up the costs and benefits of each course of action or inaction. As Mao pointed out, the hardest problem here is parametres and what values we assign to each outcome.
Ultimately, there is no correct answer. It depends on your values and the presuppositions you make. You can defend a whole litany of different techniques.
Also, apologies for resurrecting a relatively old thread. I just had an itch when reading this and felt the need to comment.