Well this morning I thought of three “what if questions” that I thought I would ask babblers. These questions are based upon people’s principles and moral values.

Here is the scenario.

You are walking down an isolated and rarely travelled road when come across a traffic accident. Upon investigating the accident site there are two people in a burning car, one is an adult, whom is a known child molester and the other is a young local child that you know very well. The adult was obviously conducting an illegal act on the child at the time of the accident.

The first question.

The car is burning quite quickly, who do you rescue first?

The second question.

Again the car is burning very fast however there is no chance in rescuing the child do you rescue the adult?

The third question.

Again the car is burning very quickly you can save both of the accident victims however it will be at the cost of your own life, do you rescue both the child molester and the child?

I hope this turns into a decent and enlightened discussion, in which we can explore a difficult question(s) and scenario.

Note: I am assuming that everyone is in a health condition and is able to conduct rescue attempts.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]

I do not think there are right and wrong answers for a scenario like this.

A young man of 17 years old was out drunk driving and he hit a car full of four young women. The car started to catch fire and burn, with all the women in it. Eventually three of the women were rescued but a fourth was much harder to get at. She was totally engulfed in flames and clearly in a lot of pain. Someone rescued her and now she lives as a horribly disfigured woman, who is so badly burnt she has almost no real mobility.

My immediate reaction to this was "why didn't they allow her to die"? I admit that were this woman me, I would not have wanted to be rescued only to live in such horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of my life.

I've thought about this over and over again since yesterday. Would I have rescued the woman, knowing what her life would be? To be honest, intellectually I would not, but emotionally I would want to.

In your scenario Webgear, I would probably rescue the child and if I could, I would also rescue the alleged abuser. I would not rescue either of them if it meant I would be horribly burnt. My worst fear is death by fire, and an even worse fear, is living as a major burn victim.

OK I got that out of my system [I tried making a cuppa tea but it wouldn't go away even then]

I think what you have not added to the situation is how a person responds in such a crisis.

You don't happen upon a burning car and have this internal conversation:

"wow a burning car"
*walks up to it*
"oh my isn't that Billy, my 12 year old neighbour who shovels my driveway and walks my dog, oh how horrible...but wait, that's Bob, who use to work at the rec centre...didn't he do time for....Bob what are you doing with Billy out here in the middle of now where in a burning car?...Billy haven't we spoken about "staying safe"?"

What really happens is 2 kilometers away you see the smoke, adrenaline kicks in, time stretches and you go into overdrive.

You fly out of your own vehicle, having called 911 upon cresting the hill and seeing the smoke is from a burning.

You pull the person you are closest too out of the car, then go back for the next one. You may decide that Billy is the first to be rescued simply because he's 12 and you can drag him away faster because he's smaller, which will give you more time for Bob before the car blows up.

But wait, change up the situation.

What if Billy turns out to be 16 and he's just dumped your daughter because she fought him off when he tried to get what he felt he was entitled too after dinner and a movie, and Bob's car is actually a gas guzzling Hummer, that he was able to purchase because his only pays his staff minimum wage and makes them cover till short falls and stolen merchandise, that spews toxic fumes where ever he goes, and there really just out joy riding as men, rulers of the world!

I think if you looking to discuss a morality play you've set up an impossible scenario. No one would dare speak up and advocate on behalf of Bob because he's creepy and is a sexual predator, Billy is simply a victim of circumstances.

Time travel morality plays are equally fascinating. The whole "would you go back in time and kill Hitler in 1939?" comes with the tapestry of subsequent history, you pull one string and it all unravels.

Do you provide medical care to an alcoholic pregnant homeless woman, who has 5 kids with FAS, all in foster care, and she's pregnant because she sells herself for booze. Besides her own life, how many lives is she destroying?

So in answer to your question, yes you save them all, as much as you can. And you go home and throw up and run the "what if's" through you head, and you wake up in a cold sweat as you relieve the moment over and over again, as your brain tries to problem solve the images burned into your brain.

quote:

---

whom is a known child molester

---

Convicted child molester? Or a "known" child molester by a lynch mob?

quote:

---

I think if you looking to discuss a morality play you've set up an impossible scenario. No one would dare speak up and advocate on behalf of Bob because he's creepy and is a sexual predator, Billy is simply a victim of circumstances.

---

I don't think this is true. These scenarios are legitimate, and while it's easy to refuse to answer the moral questions being asked by changing the scenario, they can be an interesting exercises in testing values.

So here:
Rescue the boy first.

If the boy can't be saved, then of course rescue the child molester.

I would see self-sacrifice to save two people as the moral course of action, no matter what the moral character of those being saved, though in real life I doubt I would actually do it, if death was a guaranteed result.

FWIW, I don't know that these are great questions. The last one is the only one that I can see being at all contentious.

How about this one:

A train is coming down a track where 5 workers wearing ear protection are oblivious to its approach. You see the impending disaster, and have the option to activate a switch to divert the train and save the 5 workers -- however, there is 1 worker on the other track, who will certainly die as a result of you activating the switch.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Proaxiom:

How about this one:

A train is coming down a track where 5 workers wearing ear protection are oblivious to its approach. You see the impending disaster, and have the option to activate a switch to divert the train and save the 5 workers -- however, there is 1 worker on the other track, who will certainly die as a result of you activating the switch.

Do you activate it?

---

More on the famous Trolley Problem.

Google the thing: there's a lot more!

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:

I find it significant that such 'games' turn up at a time when the morality of our invasion of Afghanistan and wholesale killing of Afghan citizens is being questioned.

---

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

The next thread will be like this:

"We have captured this young Afghan, and absolutely reliable intelligence reveals that he has planted a nuclear device in a major Canadian population centre that will be detonated by his confederates three days from now. You are the chief of security. Question: Would you approve torture to loosen his lips?"

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I fully agree with martin. There are enough real-life dilemmas around without playing parlour games to measure people's inhumanity.]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
The authority to define reason ensures that questioning authority seems unreasonable.

---

Uh, yes. That's certainly true. I'm not sure it's relevant, though.

I have my own arguments against this form of argument: what it does, in large part, is elicit and clarify a person's intuitions. That's a useful result. But intuitions have a historical basis.

There is very little attempt at rational discussion anywhere in our society - particularly where moral issues are concerned - and I am anxious to encourage it.

I agree with Marx that the ruling ideas of the age are the ideas of the ruling class. But that doesn't mean I give up on reason. (Yes, of course "whose reason?" is a perfectly good question. I believe it is possible to answer it without becoming either a relativist or post-modernist.)

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Bingo. I wish someone would close this thread - it makes me sick.

---

I repeat: the example is part of a serious argument about significant moral issues. But it was stupid of me to expect rational discussion.

(For the record, I oppose the imperialist war in Afghanistan with as much conviction and vehemence as anyone here.)

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

There is very little attempt at rational discussion anywhere in our society - particularly where moral issues are concerned - and I am anxious to encourage it.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
I find these parlor games sickening and deeply perverse.

---

I believe that we have one set of rules we believe we live by, and another set of rules that come into play when faced with the reality of life.

I always wanted another child, I have 2 and really wanted a third. The father of my children only wanted two, so we only had two. My second husband and I tried and were unsuccessful. But I always believed that if I happened to get pregnant I'd keep it regardless of the circumstances of the 'impregnation'.

Then in July of 2005 I was drugged and assaulted.

I spent 8 hours in the hospital and they gave me a pile of medication, antibiotics and stuff on the chance of STDs etc. They also strongly urged the Morning After Pill, and I was all "hell yah!"

So when I spoke to my "Baptist, ultra conservative, helped set up Birthright in our town, goes to the Right To Life dinner every year" mother, and I told her I took the pill, she was all "of course you should have"....to which I let the silence hang between us, and she said "oh".

So while her belief system was pro life under all circumstances, the reality was, when faced with a crisis, she was pro choice.

For those of you who fear fire, and count me as one of those, you may find, in the moment, that fear is over ridden.

A young woman was killed her a year or so ago. Her car cashed, her 3 passengers got out, but she was stuck. The cop arrived, and the car started to burn, but they couldn't get her out. I wept for her, the daughter of a friend, but also those that would have been at the side of that car, trying desperately to free her, only to have the fire department show up with the jaws of life, too late.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
My immediate reaction to this was "why didn't they allow her to die"? I admit that were this woman me, I would not have wanted to be rescued only to live in such horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of my life.

I've thought about this over and over again since yesterday. Would I have rescued the woman, knowing what her life would be? To be honest, intellectually I would not, but emotionally I would want to.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Ok, RosaL, what would be your response to my torture scenario?

---

I think it's a very good question! I keep thinking about this one. Suppose I capture a member of the SS. If I can get him to give me a crucial piece of information, I can save 5000 (Roma or Jewish, etc.) children. Should I torture him?

So far my very inadequate answer is, "how much torture?" Would I be willing to keep awake for one night to make him talk? I think so. Would I twist his arm? I think so. Would I step on his toes? Probably. Punch him in the face? To save lives, very likely. But is there some point at which I'd say, "this is too much"? I think there would be.

But I realize that I have approved torture (at least mild torture) and of course this gives me pause. The obvious question is, where do you draw the line? And on what basis?

I think Bonhoeffer was right to try to kill Hitler. So I have approved murder, too. And there's a "where do you draw the line" question there, too. But I'm not a pacifist.

(I have used Nazi examples because I think they're less inflammatory.)

Well, I have probably disgusted everybody, now. But I do think it's important to try to have these kinds of discussions.

There are more fundamental questions here: am I a utilitarian? a deontologist? some mixture of both? something else?

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:

ETA: Oops, just read RosaL's latest post: I spoke too soon, alas. Bring on the rational tortioners.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

---

Well, I don't think there are many people who wouldn't twist someone's arm to save a child. I agree that raises a lot of questions. But unless you are a pacifist, you are a "rational murderer" already.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

I'm sure we can accommodate everyone who wants to have their say on this. Some people want to do the thought experiment together, others would like to discuss the politics behind thought experiments and why they don't like doing them.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
I think perhaps those who aren't comfortable with this thread and with doing thought experiments should probably just read some other threads. I am uncomfortable with shutting down a thread that starts with a classic analytic philosophy thought experiment. This IS the humanities and science forum, after all.

I'm sure we can accommodate everyone who wants to have their say on this. Some people want to do the thought experiment together, others would like to discuss the politics behind thought experiments and why they don't like doing them.

So, how about two separate threads?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
The trick, RosaL and Webgear, is not to get you to endorse murder, torture or passive-aggressive capital punishment, but to get you to do it without ever giving you your burning child molester, or SS who is withholding a piece of information that will somehow save 5000 lives.

---

It's because I think that absolutist positions on these issues are rationally and morally untenable that I think we need to discuss them. I think discussing the nature of moral reasoning, what precisely I believe, what my commitments are, is my defense against precisely the kind of thing you describe.

If I thought I could say, "never torture" or "never kill", I wouldn't have to think about things like this. But I can't say that. So I need to think about when or why I think it might be necessary (and justifiable) to do such things.

There are certainly pacifists I respect (and I regard the "no torture under any circumstances" position as a strengthened form of pacifism), e.g., the people who went to Iraq and were captured and later released. Those people risked their lives for what they believe, and one of them lost his. I also know that they would find these questions worthy of discussion, though I know their answers would be different than mine. Perhaps they would convince me. But they wouldn't do it by attacking my integrity. (You haven't done that, Catchfire, but others have.) They'd talk about the issues.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
What you seem to miss, RosaL, is that the question is not "do you think you have the capacity for murder?" or, "do you think that it is possible for murder or torture to be justified?" Rather, the questions posed in such problems are always impossible situations. Absurd.

---

Are you seriously saying that no real situation could justify killing someone? or, for example, twisting someone's arm? I can give you several real examples, if you like.

Bonhoeffer was a pacifist and a follower of Ghandi until he decided to participate in a plot to kill Hitler. The plot failed and he was hung. He didn't do this because he supported the politics of domination.

During WWII, the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. Their pastor, a man who held absolutist views, let it be known that, if questioned by the Nazis, he would not lie. Some of the villagers decided they would have to kill him.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

You want me to say that I would twist an arm in some situations. This is different from asking if such an act is justified. It also legitimates a whole spectrum of violent acts inflicted on the human body, by the logic of increment (you can do one more push-up, can't you? Just one more?) If you agree to play the game, you agree to the unjust rules inherent to it (i.e. martin's post above).

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

[Re unionist's torture of young Afghan scenario:] I think it's a very good question! I keep thinking about this one.

---

It's not a very good question at all. I invented it to show that the question is the problem, not the answer. The question is premised on young Afghans being likely to be terrorists intent on wreaking nuclear havoc as part of their "jihad".

So, correct answer is:

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Show me a case where someone tortured an SS officer and saved 5000 lives (or just one!) and I'll consider your question. Until then, you can keep playing solitaire.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

It's not a very good question at all. I invented it to show that the question is the problem, not the answer. The question is premised on young Afghans being likely to be terrorists intent on wreaking nuclear havoc as part of their "jihad".

So, correct answer is:

The question itself constitutes part of the "war on terror" aimed at generating hatred against certain populations in order to justify aggression and occupation. The question is morally wrong.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:

So, how about two separate threads?

---

What if the scenario was off world?

Can we examine our perceived ethics by utilizing non human scenarios.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
That's not what I said at all. I think "justice" is too slippery a word to nail down what is justified, although I tend to think that a state that prohibits murder shouldn't be involved in the practice itself. What I am saying is that questions like the one in the OP have nothing to do with asking whether murder, or torture, or whatever are justified. It gives you a situation that will never happen and encourages you to let state-sanctioned murder in the back-door; or did you think that the OP begins and ends with letting this particular child molester live or die? (If so, I refer you to Francesca's wonderful satire of such a scenario, above.)

You want me to say that I would twist an arm in some situations. This is different from asking if such an act is justified. It also legitimates a whole spectrum of violent acts inflicted on the human body, by the logic of increment (you can do one more push-up, can't you? Just one more?) If you agree to play the game, you agree to the unjust rules inherent to it (i.e. martin's post above).

Show me a case where someone tortured an SS officer and saved 5000 lives (or just one!) and I'll consider your question. Until then, you can keep playing solitaire.

---

I don't believe I used the word "justice". And I'm not defending either capital punishment or the war in Afghanistan. I'm defending things like the Haitian revolution in the late 18th, early 19th century. And of course asking whether you would do something is different from the question of whether it is justified, though sometimes one is used as shorthand for the other. (You must give me some credit, here.) I admit though that I wasn't precise.

Why won't anyone discuss the murder cases? They are based on historical fact. And surely if murder is sometimes justified, so is torture in some form (eg hair-pulling, arm twisting)? In any case, if you are opposed to inflicting any form of violence on the human body then you must be a pacifist.

In the meantime, I will look for a historical example about torture. But it may take me awhile. I am supposed to be working. In the mean time, please answer my examples about killing.

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:
During WWII, the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. Their pastor, a man who held absolutist views, let it be known that, if questioned by the Nazis, he would not lie. Some of the villagers decided they would have to kill him.

---

I never heard this story.

But if it is true, bravo to the villagers for deciding to kill him.

War is war, and you have to kill to save lives. Every child knows that.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

I never heard this story.

But if it is true, bravo to the villagers for deciding to kill him.

War is war, and you have to kill to save lives. Every child knows that.

But first you have to decide which side you're on.

---

Precisely. (And thank you for responding to the example.)

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

Precisely. (And thank you for responding to the example.)

---

quote:

---

I agree that, if the car is in a ball of flames, there will probably be severe injuries. I know that I myself, if I were in a rescue situation, do not have the expertise to determine whether those severe injuries would be lifelong injuries. So I would rescue the person (if I had the strength and courage and were in a position to do so) and hope that injuries would such that the person could go on to lead a fruitful life.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Good. Now your view on my young Afghan question and on my answer, please, when you are ready.

---

Well, as I already said, the whole scenerio is part of the "war on terror" propaganda, which is why I didn't respond to it.

IF it were true that a nuclear catastrophe could be averted by some measure of torture, then I think it might well be justified, depending on the torture.

But if someone made your Afghan argument, in the particular historical circumstances now obtaining, obviously I'd suspect a hidden agenda. Nothing like this is even remotely the truth. I'd almost certainly turn the argument to the hidden agenda and implicit claim. If the person insisted there was no hidden agenda, I'd say, "fine. But make it someone other than an Afghan terrorist. Let's make it George Bush, perhaps. Or, to be politically neutral, an alien from Mars." Then we could argue the thing. if they then wanted to go back and say, "but this is precisely the situation in Afghanistan", I'd say, "No, it's not" and we'd argue that issue.

I have no trouble debating an "if - then" argument and then debating the truth of the "if". It is entirely reasonable - and often useful - to say, "If situation A were the case, then action B would be justified" and "But situation A is not the case and action B is not justified". However, this kind of thing will get you crucified.

In the case you mention, I'd suspect a hidden agenda. But that doesn't mean that anyone who presents a "moral quandry" example about killing or torture has the same agenda. Some of us are trying to work out what to do during the revolution!

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

As should be obvious, neither of the historical murder examples you gave justify murder. The first is predicated on the belief that killing Hitler is justified, the second that the life of 3000 Jews is worth the life of one priest (and the belief that killing the shepherd will save the flock). All of these precepts are open to debate, historical or not. (I shouldn't have to point out that we don't know if killing Hitler would have stemmed the Holocaust, or if killing the pastor would have saved the Jews, who apparently survived nonetheless.)

You say,

quote:

---

IF it were true that a nuclear catastrophe could be averted by some measure of torture, then I think it might well be justified, depending on the torture.

---

"If"? How can you know? You have to decide based on the available information.

In your villager story, no one knew for sure whether the collaborator would talk if push came to shove. They didn't wait to find out. They killed him.

What more information do you need to answer my question?

And then you say, "depending on the torture"? You mean, if you knew with certainty that a nuclear catastrophe were at stake, you would use some forms of torture but not others???

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Rosa, you used the word "justify" which requires a concept of justice in order to function.

As should be obvious, neither of the historical murder examples you gave justify murder. The first is predicated on the belief that killing Hitler is justified, the second that the life of 3000 Jews is worth the life of one priest (and the belief that killing the shepherd will save the flock). All of these precepts are open to debate, historical or not. (I shouldn't have to point out that we don't know if killing Hitler would have stemmed the Holocaust, or if killing the pastor would have saved the Jews, who apparently survived nonetheless.)

Any such questions contain cultural assumptions that disguise greater political ends. As such, they are tyrannical, and should be eradicated. Like Hitler and your priest.

---

Well, they presuppose a notion of moral justification. I don't think that's quite the same as "justice". I suppose that might depend on what you mean by "justice".

It's by no means obvious that neither of my historical examples justify murder. It's debatable, which is why I brought them up. (Of course they contain cultural presuppositions and of course cultural presuppositions are political. But not all politics is tyrannical.) In any case, feel free to argue the matter, invoking your own presuppositions and political ends. That's what I'm asking you to do.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
You know, RosaL, I gave you a simple clear answer to your question. I honestly don't understand your answer to mine.

You say,

"If"? How can you know? You have to decide based on the available information.

In your villager story, no one knew for sure whether the collaborator would talk if push came to shove. They didn't wait to find out. They killed him.

What more information do you need to answer my question?

And then you say, "depending on the torture"? You mean, if you knew with certainty that a nuclear catastrophe were at stake, you would use some forms of torture but not others???

You apparently don't like the answer I gave to this problem. Why not?

---

My point about the "if": You didn't understand me. Or I failed to explain myself. Or both. It's a crucial point. But I can't keep talking about this. I'm tired. I need to get some work done. My dog wants to go out. And really no one cares what I'm saying. If I can find a webpage that explains it, I'll post it. But I was an idiot to try to make a point like that in a forum like this.

I do and I don't like your answer. On the one hand, it addresses what is assuredly the hidden agenda in this case. On the other, it refuses to discuss a very real moral question, which can be posed without that hidden agenda and, indeed, by someone with a very different agenda.

You believe that a) killing is sometimes justified but b) torture is never justified. Is that your point? Why is killing sometimes justified but never arm-twisting?

And I am some kind of moral monster and imperialist lackey because I say a) but not b)? Anyone who says that torture in some degree might in some case be justified is in favour of torturing Iraquis and Afghanis to further the interests of the American empire - is that it? Can I not be in favour of killing Hitler but not Castro? of torturing Pinochet but not Mandela? Of leaving the lights on but not tearing limbs off?

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by RosaL:

You believe that a) killing is sometimes justified but b) torture is never justified. Is that your point? Why is killing sometimes justified but never arm-twisting?

---

Please review my posts and ask yourself why you attributed this view to me.

And stop saying I'm accusing you of something. Please review my posts and tell me where I accused you of anything.

My view is that this gameplaying is ahistorical and false. To even pose the "Afghan" scenario the way I did is to buy into the entire Islamophobic and imperialist-aggressive onslaught of the U.S. and its allies. That's the correct answer, and I stand by it.

I do not think you are a coward; your answer was both honest and truthful. I think self-preservation is a totally normal trait and a trait that is hard to overcome in any situation.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:

My immediate reaction to this was "why didn't they allow her to die"? I admit that were this woman me, I would not have wanted to be rescued only to live in such horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of my life.

I've thought about this over and over again since yesterday. Would I have rescued the woman, knowing what her life would be? To be honest, intellectually I would not, but emotionally I would want to.

---

I found this part of your statement extremely interesting, in the real life example you provide, I think many people would think the same thing.

Does emotions over rule rationality in life and death situations?

I believe emotions are more powerful than reason.

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:

So in answer to your question, yes you save them all, as much as you can. And you go home and throw up and run the "what if's" through you head, and you wake up in a cold sweat as you relieve the moment over and over again, as your brain tries to problem solve the images burned into your brain.

---

Francesca, thank you for your response. I think your answer is the ethical correct answer.

Ultimately I think the best a person can hope for in this situation is by knowing they preformed the best of their abilities.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:
I fully agree with martin. There are enough real-life dilemmas around without playing parlour games to measure people's inhumanity.

The next thread will be like this:

"We have captured this young Afghan, and absolutely reliable intelligence reveals that he has planted a nuclear device in a major Canadian population centre that will be detonated by his confederates three days from now. You are the chief of security. Question: Would you approve torture to loosen his lips?"

Go for it, Iggy.

---

No need to torture him. You already have absolutely reliable intelligence for your scenario. The intelligence agents would know were the device is if they had reliable intelligence or at the very least what city it is in. All is needed to be done is to evacuate the city.

quote:

---

Originally posted by unionist:

Please review my posts and ask yourself why you attributed this view to me.

And stop saying I'm accusing you of something. Please review my posts and tell me where I accused you of anything.

My view is that this gameplaying is ahistorical and false. To even pose the "Afghan" scenario the way I did is to buy into the entire Islamophobic and imperialist-aggressive onslaught of the U.S. and its allies. That's the correct answer, and I stand by it.

Hint for my first sentence: I never said I oppose torture.

---

I didn't thnk you did. I just wanted you to address that issue. (I admit that I'm exceedingly frustrated at this point.)

I suspect we agree for the most part - at least on the essential moral and political issues. I also agree that the Afghan scenario is ahistorical and false. (You were right: you didn't understand what I said about this. That may very well be my fault. But I stand by that, too.) I think we might have some disagreements about the nature of moral argument. But perhaps not. In any case, I need to stop for today

[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Cueball:
Clearly not.

---

Could I possibly have a list of thread topics that don't interest you, so that I can have some civilized discussions about ideas with people interested in doing so?

I was just about to start a what if threat on “Weather related incidents while you were out shopping for cooking supplies and recipes.”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Cueball

I was just about to start a what if threat on “Weather related incidents while you were out shopping for cooking supplies and recipes.”

---

My internal threat level is always green. I am not a threat to anyone nor is anyone a threat to me.

Did you hear what happened in Meaford???

We can't use a numerical threat system as it doesn't assist with literacy levels.

You could go with a feline system.

Where exactly is the fence in at the habour?

I was back a few weeks ago for a funeral. I was pretty rushed for the few days I was back home, I did not accomplish any of goals such as seeing the habour, and the Grey Roots Museum.

----------

My goal was to debate ethics/personal moral issues about saving an innocent life over a corrupted life.

Everything is a learning experience. I leant something with this thread.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
I believe the thread accomplishment my goal to a certain degree. If I was to re-write the opening post I would change the scenario slightly.

My goal was to debate ethics/personal moral issues about saving an innocent life over a corrupted life.

---

Cool! I hope you weren't offended with my initial response, I wasn't trying to be flip.

I had a 2 year old fall out of a 3rd story window and land beside my parked truck in 2006 [she was fine] and my perception of the event was so altered due to human crisis response, so to me making judgement calls just don't have time to happen, you just don't think that way in those types of situations.

In some way your morality/ethical question plagues all of society. The judgement of the 'deserving poor' vs those that smoke and drink and fornicate.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Webgear:
Cueball

I was just about to start a what if threat on “Weather related incidents while you were out shopping for cooking supplies and recipes.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
There is no such thing as "a corrupted life".

---

As a sign of good faith, i'll answer the questions.

To the burning car one: chances are, i wouldn't think at all; would probably operate on adrenalin and terror. Would probably try to save anyone i could reach, until it got too hot or i got too scared or i had to throw up.

To the Afghan kid with the bomb: I don't know. It would depend on how convinced i was of his guilt, how i felt about his demeanour (angry because he's stubborn or sympathetic because he seems bewildered) how much responsibility i carried; maybe a couple of other factors. Could i actually, personally, physically, carry out the torture? Probably not. Could i authorize it? Maybe. Would i consent to it? Very likely.

To killing Hitler or Stalin: Sure, go ahead. Wouldn't do it myself, unless in imminent danger.... and maybe even then i might hesitate too long. (I killed a severly injured mouse once, and that was hard) If far enough removed; say, pushing a button on a remote-control, i probably could.

I have no moral problem with 'sanctioning' or 'terminating' or 'removing' very destructive people. I have no moral problem with the death penalty for serial killers or tyrants. My problem is with deciding whether someone really is as bad as all that, and then with carrying out the sentence, hands-on.... Unless the bastard in question had raped my daughter or was presently threatening my grandchild, in which case, i'd have at him with a paring-knife; no scruples, no moral quandary.

Unionist's objection about the use of such questions to justify certain political policies is fair, but there exists a decent counterpoint to the Afghan torture problem:

Suppose you accept that the torture of the Afghan is necessary, and do so, but he proves stoic and still refuses to reveal the information. You have access to the Afghan's family, though, and think he might talk if you threaten to kill his three young children.

Is it justifiable to start shooting his innocent children, one at a time, until he talks, in order to save a million people at home?

The torture scenario is about using an end to justify a means. This is the same as the Trolley problem linked to by RosaL. The use of the torture vs nuclear catastrophe question is disingenuous because it so heavily stacks the harm/benefit ratio of the action as to lead to an emotion-based answer, while glossing over the philosophical problems. Asking the same question as infanticide vs nuclear catastrophe is more fairly illustrative (as is the Trolley problem).

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: Proaxiom ]

quote:

---

Suppose you accept that the torture of the Afghan is necessary, and do so, but he proves stoic and still refuses to reveal the information...

---

[ 30 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

Consider the question in the OP. It assumes that you should have a say whether anyone lives or dies. It assumes that the child is wholly innocent and the pedophile wholly guilty. It does this while posing an entirely unlikely situation that even if an individual, against all likelihood, found herself in it, would not warrant enough time to make a detailed, considered response, all the while masquerading as a strategy for setting ethical lines for society.

The assumptions implicit to such questions are even more evident in unionist's revision. Such a question assumes 1) it is my right to decide whether or not to torture another human being, 2) it assumes that I know this individual is a 'terrorist', and that a 'terrorist' is an easily definable being and 3) that torture is an effective way to get information out of someone who would prefer to withhold it. I question all three of these tenets.

They are dishonest tricks that apply specific, human, emotional (and impossible) situations to abstract universals like ethics and justice. Is this how people draft laws and human rights charters? By asking what would happen if Jack Bauer had Saddam Hussein in the middle of Los Angeles ten minutes before ten nuclear bombs were about to go off across America?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Catchfire:
Is this how people draft laws and human rights charters? By asking what would happen if Jack Bauer had Saddam Hussein in the middle of Los Angeles ten minutes before ten nuclear bombs were about to go off across America?

---

Excellent point. No, of course, it's not how they draft laws and human rights charters. But it definitely is how imperialists and aggressors brainwash their own populations into acquiescing in such crimes. That's what shit like "24" is all about.

quote:

---

I would save the pedophile and murder the child, because I hate to see kids suffer.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by rural - Francesca:
[QB]

I had a 2 year old fall out of a 3rd story window and land beside my parked truck in 2006 [she was fine] and my perception of the event was so altered due to human crisis response, so to me making judgement calls just don't have time to happen, you just don't think that way in those types of situations.

---

I have to agree with you here. While these types of thought questions are interesting, in reality at least in my experience you don't think about the moral implications.

Without getting into specific details, I was actually involved in a situation where someone deliberately set a fire in a house with several other people in it. You just don't think, something else kicks in. People ran in to get them ALL out. Including me. It was only afterwards, ALL safe by the way, when the adrenalin was over and at the hospital where several people were treated for smoke inhalation, both victims and rescuers, that I even considered any of the moral questions about well what would have happened if we had to make a choice between the fire setter and the others, or even about my own personal safety. Meaning "a WTF was I thinking I ran INTO a burning building!' Which I did a lot. It was a total shock to me that I would do that. Even now I still couldn't say for sure that yes I would do that again.
I just reacted and it was simple as that.