You iz stupid. **Political Debate Thread**

[Pascal]

Associating the example with the holocaust is a poor attempt to bring up strong emotions to block out reason.

It isn’t an attempt to block out reason, it is one of many examples of people using “One for Many” to justify the killing of others. It has been used many times though out history, some times the action as been considered moral, other time is hasn’t.

The medical advances that saved all those lives could have been brought about without the huge lose of life. Additionaly, the lose of life to experimentation during the holocaust was a very small percentage of those killed.

Off topic, but it would have taken over a decade to achieve those advancements. While the outcome may have been used for good, it doesn’t change that the act is not.

A less biased example would be testing a new cancer treatment drug that has a high chance of killing the test patient, but also a high chance of creating a cure that would save millions.

Yes, it would be the same thing, assuming the person killed by the drug, did not consent to taking it. This is no different that your baby example. The baby didn’t consent to giving its life to the cure. Even though the outcome is good by saving millions, it doesn’t change that the act to archive such a goal is wrong.

I also don't remember trying to justify any atrocities with this statement. My origonal example that stemmed this whole conversation was one of self sacrifice.

The baby example doesn’t show self sacrifice as the baby isn’t the one making the chose to die; someone else is making that choose for them. (Die assuming the boiling kills them).

The later example I gave after Mattaru said he would not give his life to save any number of people was the baby one which had been created by my philosophy teacher. I'm also not discussing the fact that hindsight is 20/20. Of course picking out certain people could have saved many we see now.

I'm refering to things you know now and for certain. Such as shooting a man about to set off a bomb in the middle of a crowd, you know killing that man will save many lives.

I have no problem shooting the guy, because the guy is directly endangering my life as well as other. This doesn’t apply to the baby example, because the baby isn’t endangering their lives. The event that is killing theses people are already set in motion.

The thing about philosophy is everything exists, while not existing. In other words a Philosophy may sound good but it is created in a pure and perfect idea of the world. Once the philosophy is placed into relativity we often find it is no longer perfect.

Thou shall not kill may sound good in the perfect world, but in reality it is necessary to kill in some form.

Why shouldn't the million scrafice them selves for the baby?
"One for all, all for one"

 

[Mattaru]

I don't quite see myself in that position, but w/e. Any time we help another country, it increases the chances of receiving help in return. I'll try to relate this to a philosophy example I was given. Which world would you prefer to live in?

A. A world where no one steals, but you do steal.
B. A world where no one steals, and neither do you.
C. A world where everyone steals, and so do you.
D. A world where everyone steals, but you don't.

I ordered them according to greastest benefit for you. Of course we all want choice A, but if everyone goes for that we are self defeating and end up with choice C. Thus if everyone instead strives for B, we end up with B. Its not optimum, but not everyone can get optimum at the same time. Now for the relation:

A. A world where every country helps others, but you don't.
B. A world where every country helps others, and sor do you.
C. A world where no country helps others, and neither do you.
D. A world where no country helps, but you do.

As you can see, this example works much the same. Choice A is what we would prefer, but it is self defeating. So everyone should aim for the next best option of B. How is that for a justification?

Well, even if you can't see yourself in that position doesnt mean you aren't. Hell, I could choose not see myself in any position through out this discussion, yet I could be. Tell me why that isnt a burden you have set for yourself.

A world I'd prefer to live in would be a world where countries work for their own best interests, but that doesnt mean they should be wapred (ie imperialism etc). What I mean is the world I'd prefer to live in is one where there is continuous dialogue as an international communitty on an equal playing field. The problem that is created by the current system is much like how A would lead to C, everyone acts in their own interest, even when having good intentions and it inevitably clashes leading to collapse. I.e "The Tragedy of the Commons" which refers to the misuse use of public pastureland: add a little more to a herd to increase profit, everyone sees this and does it too, the pasture becomes overpopulated and fails - its used today with natural resource use and pollution. Therefore, what is in their best interests is to have dialogue with other nations they affect to come up with the most beneficial/least harmful solution.

The problem with your example, as in any philosophy, is in its metaphysical premise. That it will be in people's nature to first pick A, or that A is going to be the most benefit to you. This is in reference to the stealing example. What if you did not see benefit in stealing because someone will pwn you in the face with a blunt object for it? The second problem is that the correlation between the 2 A's isnt there. The first A implicates that you are to actually steal from others. The second A merely implies inaction in a world of positive action. They are closer to opposites really.

Freedom is a sense of self control in your own life. The abiltiy to persue what makes you happy (as long as it doesn't impede others freedom; creating a slightly controled freedom). We know what slavery is, freedom is the opposite end of the spectrum.

For a person who has control over those around them there since of self control is greater. They have less things impeding on them so greater freedom, its that simple. This is why too much freedom is bad, because too much freedom = too much control over others freedom, and too much control in general. Freedom isnt an absolute (as you yourself agree when you say "controlled") therefore if you equate it to a spectrum there is only more or less freedom, and conversely, more or less control.
On a side note: A sense of self control can also be equated to free will, which isnt freedom. one being physical, the other mental. They obviously do affect one another, they pretty much go hand in hand if you have less freedom your free will is still always there but much more difficult to actually realize.

I'm sorry, but what does that mean? I went through a couple art classes in junior high, but I don't think you are refering to paintings. :lol:

Basically, make yourself into the person you see yourself as happy being. So unless your paintings are very insightful into your innermost desires in life than probably not.

Why: 1. The reason, cause, or purpose for which.
Cruelty is not the reason or justificaiton for the structure's existance.

I cant go back and check exactly what this referring too as I type....but I think it was the statement about....something cruel xD. Ok, I believe the justification wasnt "cruelty" but explained in the post that you replied to as being cruel. I believe the reason the structure is allowed ot exist is that people can be cruel, the reason it does exist though is because people or acting under their selfish nature to an extreme degree. Or the buddhists would say because the ego or something idk. Cruelty doesnt justify, I wasn't trying to justify anything is what i was saying, only making an observation on why people allow it to exist, and earlier than that why it esxists.

Last I checked we were installing a republic and they held elections recently. That implies they will not have another dictator. You don't center a locus of control, you improve it. When people gain a sense of control, choice, rights, freedom, it grows. The ability to have a legitamate election for their leader for the first time in decades is a big step in the right direction. People with a strong locus of control will not fall into learned helpness and are more likely to help themselves in the future.

Yes, its a step in the right direction to have people vote, its a small step when you realize that gaining a sense of rights, choice, freedom, etc. is a much more important thing. Voting is just an action you go through that is only meaningful if you have a sense of the above. So unless the United States stays in Iraq for oh 20 years or so when the nation is more capable of standing on its own feet in a variety of ways (politically, financially etc), if the US leaves it means that any "elected" official can easily take hold of power, anybody with enough tanks can perform a coup de tat. Why isnt the case in America, because we have grown up around freedom, choice, rights and will check anyone who poses a major threat to that. We dont stand for oppression in our nation. In Iraq it would just be old news if a dictator came to power.

I'm just going to have to disagree with your interpretation. An action is not judged solely on the result and consequences. The intent plays a huge role in the morality of the action. Just look at our own legal system (not saying it's perfect). When you kill someone, whether you get first degree murder or man slaughter depends solely upon intent. If you act with good, reasonable intentions for what is seeable as the best, most reliable outcome, then that action can not be called moralely wrong.

Um, all thats fine and all, I mostly agree. I'm just saying that what you are saying Utilitarianism is .... isn't, at all. Utilitarianism judges the morality of an action on its outcome, i.e: "the greatest good for the greatest number" must produce good. If it doesn't it isn't moral.

2. Any egalitarian or humanitarian act is done out of a percieved obligation stemming from a moral belief and the majority of people will fulfill it if it little sweat off their back, only people with strong convictions go further.

You and your social contract beliefs. :lol: Have to give you credit for coming up with a creative answer at least.

That isnt a social contract belief at all. Contractual obligations arent moral obligations. I'm sorry I cant give you the same credit, all you did was laugh at it, and you didnt even get it.

I notice you bring up the word 'obligation' quite a bit. Do you have an obligation to some equally strange person in your own city? State? Country? Continent? World? It's all a matter of perspective and where you draw your lines. Some people draw them larger than their country (which seems to be where you draw yours).

It really depends on which obligation you are talk about to determine how far it goes. Most of mine stop at nation because their is an undeniable obligation(s) that exist(s) between citizen - nation, << this is a social contract belief. I don't see myself having any other moral obligations or otherwise to people across the globe other than those I believe I have because there is no objective standard of human moral conduct (I have papers and papers of flow charts as a proof for this if you really want to see them).

I'll use the line my philosophy teacher used, would you boil a baby if it would save a million lives? A billion? All acts, no matter how awful (eg: boiling a baby) have some limit where it is outweighed. This relates back to my first example in this post about stealing. In this case, if everyone made the decision to sacrifice their own life to save many others, the world would be a better place than a world where no one would sacrifice their own life to save millions. This example is best seen in bee hives, no bee wants to die, but they will all die unless a few sacrifice themselves in defence of their colony.

1. If your example was true than everyone would be dead once someone decided to sacrifice their life. Good thing we arent bees.

2. I wouldnt boil a baby to save any number of lives. You know why, that baby didnt do anything to me, that baby didnt do anyhting to anybody, you would only boil that baby if you viewed human worth through numbers. Just because you have the power to stop something like death from happening (ie boiling the baby) doesnt mean you should always use it. I am not out killing these people, I'm not the man in africa spreading AIDS to women due to FGM, if I help its because I choose to help, you cant make me obligated to help.

 

[Pascal]

Freedom is a sense of self control in your own life. The abiltiy to persue what makes you happy (as long as it doesn't impede others freedom; creating a slightly controled freedom). We know what slavery is, freedom is the opposite end of the spectrum.

For a person who has control over those around them there since of self control is greater. They have less things impeding on them so greater freedom, its that simple. This is why too much freedom is bad, because too much freedom = too much control over others freedom, and too much control in general. Freedom isnt an absolute (as you yourself agree when you say "controlled") therefore if you equate it to a spectrum there is only more or less freedom, and conversely, more or less control.
On a side note: A sense of self control can also be equated to free will, which isnt freedom. one being physical, the other mental. They obviously do affect one another, they pretty much go hand in hand if you have less freedom your free will is still always there but much more difficult to actually realize.

“Perceived Freedom” is the sense of self control in ones own life. Freedom is actually having the chose.

 

[Rones]

Associating the example with the holocaust is a poor attempt to bring up strong emotions to block out reason.

It isn’t an attempt to block out reason, it is one of many examples of people using “One for Many” to justify the killing of others. It has been used many times though out history, some times the action as been considered moral, other time is hasn’t.

The Nazis were not acting for the better of all man kind. They were attempting to find a flaw in the the 'inferior races' to help further them as scapegoats. Do not try to twist my argument into a defence of the Holocaust. That isn't my intent, and you know that.

A less biased example would be testing a new cancer treatment drug that has a high chance of killing the test patient, but also a high chance of creating a cure that would save millions.

Yes, it would be the same thing, assuming the person killed by the drug, did not consent to taking it. This is no different that your baby example. The baby didn’t consent to giving its life to the cure. Even though the outcome is good by saving millions, it doesn’t change that the act to archive such a goal is wrong.

No, it is not the same thing because this is an example for my self sacrifice argument. Since when are people in the US forced to be test subjects for new drug treatments? Again you are trying to twist my argument into something it is not. Someone giving their life to test a potential drug treatment that would save millions is a very good and morale thing as long as the volunteer fully knows the consequences.

I also don't remember trying to justify any atrocities with this statement. My origonal example that stemmed this whole conversation was one of self sacrifice.

The baby example doesn’t show self sacrifice as the baby isn’t the one making the chose to die; someone else is making that choose for them. (Die assuming the boiling kills them).

I never said that example was self sacrifice. Again you are intentially misquoting me in the attempt to create a straw man argument (as is clear since you quoted my reference to that example next) and not addressing my actual points.

I have no problem shooting the guy, because the guy is directly endangering my life as well as other. This doesn’t apply to the baby example, because the baby isn’t endangering their lives. The event that is killing theses people are already set in motion.

In the case of a philisophical example, they are one and the same. Under whatever extreme circumstances, if that baby is not killed millions will die. Just for examples sake, let's say the baby has a highly contagious disease that will most certainly kill millions if he isn't killed instantly. If that bomber is not shot, many will die. The only difference between those two examples is how the person that must die came to be in that situation, the bomber by choice, the baby by outside circumstances. Yet, what must be done for the greater good is the same in both. Yes it is wrorng to kill the baby (and to an extent the bomber), but the wrong from letting all those people die far outweighs that.

Now Mattaru:

Well, even if you can't see yourself in that position doesnt mean you aren't. Hell, I could choose not see myself in any position through out this discussion, yet I could be. Tell me why that isnt a burden you have set for yourself.

I could say you are in a position of defending Stalin's massacering his own people, but just because I say it doesn't mean you actually are. Same thing here. I do not see myself in the position you stated earlier, but I still explained all of it in the post you quoted from.

The problem with your example, as in any philosophy, is in its metaphysical premise. That it will be in people's nature to first pick A, or that A is going to be the most benefit to you. This is in reference to the stealing example. What if you did not see benefit in stealing because someone will pwn you in the face with a blunt object for it? The second problem is that the correlation between the 2 A's isnt there. The first A implicates that you are to actually steal from others. The second A merely implies inaction in a world of positive action. They are closer to opposites really.

First point, getting 'owned in the face' would be an outside factor that encourages people to go with the best choice for everyone B. Police fufill this role in common society, as a persuasive force that makes it in the individuals best interest to go with B. I didn't bring up any for my examples because that gets a little deeper into the discussion and would imply that it is already decided that B is indeed best for everyone.

Second point, this is something pascal had trouble grasping with too. Stealing and inaction seem a little opposite, but I figured you would bridge the gap. If every country is helping other countries, but yours does not, it is like you are stealing or leeching from the situation. If too many countries choose not to help, the situation becomes self defeating as with if everyone stole. Inaction is an action and not autimatically right nor always neutral.

For a person who has control over those around them there since of self control is greater. They have less things impeding on them so greater freedom, its that simple. This is why too much freedom is bad, because too much freedom = too much control over others freedom, and too much control in general. Freedom isnt an absolute (as you yourself agree when you say "controlled") therefore if you equate it to a spectrum there is only more or less freedom, and conversely, more or less control.

Since when do you have to have control over others to have freedom?! You can have the freedom of choice and persuit of your personal goals without having to control others or hold power over them. I would say those who do have control and power actually have less freedom as they are tied down by their responsibilties to those who they command and lead. This is evident in our military's officer program. The officers who have the most control have the least freedoms. Officers must live up to higher standerds and have more duties to their men than the men have to their officer. Your ideas of freedom come across as really strange to what I see.

I'm just saying that what you are saying Utilitarianism is .... isn't, at all. Utilitarianism judges the morality of an action on its outcome, i.e: "the greatest good for the greatest number" must produce good. If it doesn't it isn't moral.

Yes, I fully realize Utilitarinism is largely focused on the results and consequences. However, when you are trying to use it to decide future actions, foresight is not 20/20. If it doesn't work out right, of course classify the result as morally wrong since the whole reason of calling something immorale is to prevent people from repeating it in the future. However, you can not call their decision to act immoral. This is the basics of Act Utilitarianism. "Act utilitarianism states that the best act is whichever act would yield the most happiness." The future is never 100%, that is why you would act toward achieving the most happiness, but of course it won't always work out right. That doesn't automatically make it immoral.

2. Any egalitarian or humanitarian act is done out of a percieved obligation stemming from a moral belief and the majority of people will fulfill it if it little sweat off their back, only people with strong convictions go further.

You and your social contract beliefs. :lol: Have to give you credit for coming up with a creative answer at least.

That isnt a social contract belief at all. Contractual obligations arent moral obligations. I'm sorry I cant give you the same credit, all you did was laugh at it, and you didnt even get it.

Yes, it is exactly and I quote, "Social Contract Theory...is the view that persons' moral and/or political obligations are dependent upon a contract or agreement between them to form society." Courtesy of Philosophy Encyclopedia..

if I help its because I choose to help, you cant make me obligated to help.

Of course no one can make you help. No one can make you do anything if you are willing to suffer the consequences. However, the whole idea of morality revolves around the way we should act. Whether you act that way or not is a question of whether you choose to act morale.

. Just because you have the power to stop something like death from happening (ie boiling the baby) doesnt mean you should always use it. I am not out killing these people,

Oh but you are out killing these people. If your inaction results in their deaths, you share the responsibility and guilt. I think you are still hanging up on the idea how killing a baby could save millions rather than the idea of doing something wrong to prevent a much greater wrong. Not all situations are win/win. Many are lose/greater lose. Inaction does not escape you from the situation and make a win.

 

[Pascal]

The Nazis were not acting for the better of all man kind.

One, you never said for all man kind. You said “one for many”. I was pointing out one of many possible example of where “one for many” has been used to justify an action which is evil.

They were attempting to find a flaw in the the 'inferior races' to help further them as scapegoats.

The many was their view of them selves as the “Master Race”, the few was everyone else, once again the point “One for Many” being used in history to commit an evil act. Notice, I’m not saying “One for all man kind”.

Do not try to twist my argument into a defence of the Holocaust. That isn't my intent, and you know that.

I’m not trying to defended the Holocaust in any way, I’m pointing out historical fact of how the Nazi’s justified and viewed many of there actions.

Here is another historical example; Stalin murdered people that challenged his rule. Stalin believed his rule and form of government was what was best for his people. By killing the few people who opposed him, he was doing the greater good for the masses.

I can also use slavery to show the same thing.

NOTE: It doesn’t matter how WE view there actions, this is how THEY viewed them.

---------

You said in response to my Holocaust example

A less biased example would be testing a new cancer treatment drug that has a high chance of killing the test patient, but also a high chance of creating a cure that would save millions.

“A less biased example” to me implies you are giving an example which illustrates the same thing I was illustrating, but without the offending content.

I said to clarify your example in comparison to my example.

Yes, it would be the same thing, assuming the person killed by the drug, did not consent to taking it. This is no different that your baby example. The baby didn’t consent to giving its life to the cure. Even though the outcome is good by saving millions, it doesn’t change that the act to archive such a goal is wrong.

Now you are saying

No, it is not the same thing because this is an example for my self sacrifice argument.
Since when are people in the US forced to be test subjects for new drug treatments?
Again you are trying to twist my argument into something it is not. Someone giving their life to test a potential drug treatment that would save millions is a very good and morale thing as long as the volunteer fully knows the consequences.

You are the one who said the example you were giving was the same as mine, just not as biased. I only clarified you example in relation to mine. I never said people in the US where forced to take new drugs with out consent. I said if a person was forced (with out consent) to take a drug that killed them (even if it was to save millions) is no different than my first example (the medical experiments performed during the holocaust).

In your baby example you are killing a baby who did not consent to die, to save millions. There is still a death there of a person with out their consent.

Someone giving their life to test a potential drug treatment that would save millions is a very good and morale thing as long as the volunteer fully knows the consequences.

The keyword here is “volunteer”. To volunteer, they must consent. Which I agree is self sacrifice and is a good thing.

I never said that example was self sacrifice. Again you are intentially misquoting me in the attempt to create a straw man argument

Lets review

I also don't remember trying to justify any atrocities with this statement. My origonal example that stemmed this whole conversation was one of self sacrifice.

This conversation with me stemmed from you giving an example of boiling a baby to save millions. You clearly say in the quote above, “My origonal example that stemmed this whole conversation was one of self sacrifice.” I’ve not edited this quote (excluding the bolding). It is what you said.

My Response to you

The baby example doesn’t show self sacrifice as the baby isn’t the one making the chose to die; someone else is making that choose for them. (Die assuming the boiling kills them).

The point of my response for something to be considered “Self Sacrifice” it must choose to die.

(as is clear since you quoted my reference to that example next) and not addressing my actual points.

Your example is the point I'm addressing, nothing else. My whole point is just because killing someone will save more than the amount of people who die, does not always make the saving of more people than killed a greater good (aka Morally right).

I have no problem shooting the guy, because the guy is directly endangering my life as well as other. This doesn’t apply to the baby example, because the baby isn’t endangering their lives. The event that is killing theses people are already set in motion.

Let me give you an example based on “Killing a baby to save millions”.

Someone just starts killing babies and performing experiments on them, theses deaths lead to a cure for aids. Let’s say 500 babies died, millions of aid victims saved.

Did theses babies cause the aids virus or perform any action to making the virus worse?
No
Did theses babies volunteer to die for this cure?
No
Is a cure for aids a good thing?
Yes
Is killing 500 babies to achieve this a good thing?
No
Which action is the greater evil?

I say killing the babies is far worse than letting a million people (who are already going to die), die. The events that leads to the people getting aids (that is killing them), has nothing to do with the babies.

Your argument “thus far” (as I understand it) is that letting the million people die instead of killing the 500 babies is the greater evil, because more people are saved than the amount of people killed.

I don’t see how that is any different than what has been done though out history.

In the case of a philisophical example, they are one and the same. Under whatever extreme circumstances, if that baby is not killed millions will die. Just for examples sake, let's say the baby has a highly contagious disease that will most certainly kill millions if he isn't killed instantly. If that bomber is not shot, many will die. The only difference between those two examples is how the person that must die came to be in that situation, the bomber by choice, the baby by outside circumstances. Yet, what must be done for the greater good is the same in both. Yes it is wrorng to kill the baby (and to an extent the bomber), but the wrong from letting all those people die far outweighs that.

In this example, the baby is endangering the life of others, thus killing the baby is self preservation or the preservation of others. Though the baby didn’t choose to have the disease, the action (event) of the baby having the disease means the baby is setting in motion the events leading to the death of others. Here I would have no problem killing the baby.

But that is different than just killing a baby that performed no action leading (or linking) it to the death of others, no matter how many lives are saved by killing it.

Second point, this is something pascal had trouble grasping with too. Stealing and inaction seem a little opposite, but I figured you would bridge the gap. If every country is helping other countries, but yours does not, it is like you are stealing or leeching from the situation. If too many countries choose not to help, the situation becomes self defeating as with if everyone stole. Inaction is an action and not autimatically right nor always neutral.

I have no problem grasping the concept of inaction being an action. Inaction is an action and can link to you an event.

If you stand their watching a person getting beaten to death and chose to do nothing, then your inaction does contribute to their death. This I understand, but it has nothing to do with my other posts.

My point of my other posts is just because a greater number of people are served by an action, does not always make it the right action.

 

[Rones]

For the Stalin and halucaust stuff, that doesn't fall under one for the many morality reasoning. It is a basic assumption that in reference to our discussion, the one making the decision is going to be objective, unbiased, and mostly sane. Those atrocities occured partly because the leadership was none of the above. Thus, trying to discredit the reasoning because of some lunatics who wielded a crazy version of it and did terrible acts is not relevent to the discussion. This is just like the Islamic religion. There are clerics who misuse the teachings to create crazed terrorists, but this doesn't discredit the religion as whole because some missuse and misinterrpret it.

“A less biased example” to me implies you are giving an example which illustrates the same thing I was illustrating, but without the offending content.
...
You are the one who said the example you were giving was the same as mine, just not as biased. I only clarified you example in relation to mine. I never said people in the US where forced to take new drugs with out consent. I said if a person was forced (with out consent) to take a drug that killed them (even if it was to save millions) is no different than my first example (the medical experiments performed during the holocaust).

You are nitpicking. I never said my example was the same as yours, you did. The statement "a less biased example" implies no requirement to it being related to yours other than it does not have the strong emotional bias. Additionaly, you never even address my example and its morality, instead you pick at wording. :?

The keyword here is “volunteer”. To volunteer, they must consent. Which I agree is self sacrifice and is a good thing.
...
This conversation with me stemmed from you giving an example of boiling a baby to save millions. You clearly say in the quote above, “My origonal example that stemmed this whole conversation was one of self sacrifice.” I’ve not edited this quote (excluding the bolding). It is what you said.

Let's get this straight here. There are two examples I've been using. One of self sacrifice, one of forced sacrifice. Please stop mixing up what I say for one for the other to make my statements look foolish. My first statement was of self sacrifice (would you give your life to save millions?). The baby one came second, not that this matters in the slightest since you are not actually addressing the morality of either, but rather mixing what I say about one with what I say on the other. :evil:

Someone just starts killing babies and performing experiments on them, theses deaths lead to a cure for aids. Let’s say 500 babies died, millions of aid victims saved.

I ask you consider the inverse of your argument. Someone wants millions of people to die in order to spare 500 uninvolved babies. Your decision is suddenly not so clear. What have those babies done to be any more deserving of life than those millions of people? For a philisophical exmaple, that would be nothing. Thus both sides being equally entitled to the right to life, the choice that saves the most lives is morally right. Although I must wonder about you using 500 babies instead of 1 as in the origonal example. That seems like an attempt to counter the argument with the emotional response of so many babies, than actual reasoning. Put 1 million people next to 500 babies and try to tell the 1million they have to die so the babies may live.

Which action is the greater evil?

Funny you didn't include the other evil for a fair comparison, only mentioning the 500 babies dying. I think it would look like a better this way:
Is letting 1million people die a good thing?
No
Is killing 500 babies a good thing?
No
Which action is the greater evil?

But that is different than just killing a baby that performed no action leading (or linking) it to the death of others, no matter how many lives are saved by killing it.

For the sake of the example, assume their is something linking why the baby must die to spare millions of people. You descredit my examples, that is fine it's not perfect, but a philosophical situation is worthless if you don't accept the given.

If you stand their watching a person getting beaten to death and chose to do nothing, then your inaction does contribute to their death. This I understand, but it has nothing to do with my other posts.

Ah but it does because you use it to support your argument here:

I say killing the babies is far worse than letting a million people (who are already going to die), die. The events that leads to the people getting aids (that is killing them), has nothing to do with the babies.

Since the people are already going to die if you don't act, you are trying to discredit your responsibility from their death by the argument that inaction is automatically neutral/ok which is better than killing a baby. I also notice you choose a situation where the people dying are there of their own fault. What about a situation where the million dying are there of no fault to themselves just like the babies?

Here is a really simple example: There is a nuclear missle heading toward New York with its millions of people. You have the ability to push the only button available which will redirect it to the next target, a town with just 1 baby and no one else in it. Do you push the button? Either way people will die, you can choose inaction and millions perish, or you can force the sacrifice of a single individual to save millions.

 

[Pascal]

Here is a really simple example: There is a nuclear missle heading toward New York with its millions of people. You have the ability to push the only button available which will redirect it to the next target, a town with just 1 baby and no one else in it. Do you push the button? Either way people will die, you can choose inaction and millions perish, or you can force the sacrifice of a single individual to save millions.

Ok, let me jump down to the bottom, I’ll come back to the top and address it later.

Going strictly on the information provided. I am forced to choose the larger number, because it creates less harm, but I consider the outcome of either action immoral and as such, I expect and accept the responsibility of the immoral act.

For me the “Intent” of the action means nothing, only the outcome determines if it was moral.

 

[Pascal]

Now that I have made my pervious post, and hopefully you have a more insight into what I consider moral and immoral.

For the Stalin and halucaust stuff, that doesn't fall under one for the many morality reasoning. It is a basic assumption that in reference to our discussion, the one making the decision is going to be objective, unbiased, and mostly sane.

I’ve not been making that assumption, nor have I been making the assumption that everyone has the same morals.

Those atrocities occured partly because the leadership was none of the above. Thus, trying to discredit the reasoning because of some lunatics who wielded a crazy version of it and did terrible acts is not relevent to the discussion. This is just like the Islamic religion. There are clerics who misuse the teachings to create crazed terrorists, but this doesn't discredit the religion as whole because some missuse and misinterrpret it.

While theses people do have there own “misinterpretation” of what “One for many” stand for, it doesn’t change the fact in there eyes , that what they were doing was morally right. This is why I judge morality by the outcome, not the intent. It is to easy for people to say, I had good intention to being with. It doesn’t change the fact that the outcome was immoral.

You are nitpicking. I never said my example was the same as yours, you did. The statement "a less biased example" implies no requirement to it being related to yours other than it does not have the strong emotional bias. Additionaly, you never even address my example and its morality, instead you pick at wording.

I explained how I interrupted what you said, because that is what you questioned, when you responded to my answer. While you meant something else, it doesn’t change the fact I read it differently than what you meant. I was responding to how I read it.

As for addressing it, here we go.

A less biased example would be testing a new cancer treatment drug that has a high chance of killing the test patient, but also a high chance of creating a cure that would save millions.

If the patient agreed to be a test subject, it’s good, if he didn’t its bad.

Let's get this straight here. There are two examples I've been using. One of self sacrifice, one of forced sacrifice. Please stop mixing up what I say for one for the other to make my statements look foolish. My first statement was of self sacrifice (would you give your life to save millions?). The baby one came second, not that this matters in the slightest since you are not actually addressing the morality of either, but rather mixing what I say about one with what I say on the other.

Ok, now let’s get this straight. Beside my answer that yes I would give my own life to save a million. All my other responses have been in reference to the second example. I’ve not been mixing up your two examples, because I’ve only been talking about one of them and yes, I have covered the morality of your second example.

I ask you consider the inverse of your argument. Someone wants millions of people to die in order to spare 500 uninvolved babies. Your decision is suddenly not so clear. What have those babies done to be any more deserving of life than those millions of people? For a philisophical exmaple, that would be nothing. Thus both sides being equally entitled to the right to life, the choice that saves the most lives is morally right.

I think when I addressed your second example, it should also cover this.

Although I must wonder about you using 500 babies instead of 1 as in the origonal example. That seems like an attempt to counter the argument with the emotional response of so many babies, than actual reasoning. Put 1 million people next to 500 babies and try to tell the 1million they have to die so the babies may live.

It doesn’t matter if it was 1 baby or 500. I picked 500 because it seemed more realistic. As for telling the people they must die (assuming we are using my aids example), I have no problem telling them, because in my view I am morally right, even though it may not be morally right in your view or there view.

Since the people are already going to die if you don't act, you are trying to discredit your responsibility from their death by the argument that inaction is automatically neutral/ok which is better than killing a baby. I also notice you choose a situation where the people dying are there of their own fault. What about a situation where the million dying are there of no fault to themselves just like the babies?

Not everyone who has aids got it because of there own fault, I picked it once again because it seemed more realistic. We can use cancer if you like.

Inaction is not automatically neutral; I’m arguing that sometimes it is the correct course of action.

A doctor has taken an oath to do no harm; he has a patient who is dying some kind of horrible death who wants to die.

Does he keep providing medical treatment prolonging there suffering, but keeping them alive just a bit longer?
Does he do nothing and let the person die?
Does he put the person out of there misery?

His Oath/Morals say Choose 1 and Choose 3 are immoral, so the only other thing he can do is Choose 2.

As for actually addressing the reversed of my aids example, I think my response to your simple exampled covered it. In a case where neither side has a direct cause to each other, but one group must die, and then the outcome no matter what is immoral, even though I’m forced to pick between the two, but that answer is based on the limited information provided.

 

[Pascal]

Since when are people in the US forced to be test subjects for new drug treatments?

By the way, that is also considered “The Straw man argument”, since I never said people in the US where being forced to test drugs.

Straw Man (Fallacy Of Extension):
attacking an exaggerated or caricatured version of your opponent's position.
For example, the claim that "evolution means a dog giving birth to a cat."
Another example: "Senator Jones says that we should not fund the attack submarine program. I disagree entirely. I can't understand why he wants to leave us defenseless like that."
On the Internet, it is common to exaggerate the opponent's position so that a comparison can be made between the opponent and Hitler.

 

[Rones]

Here is a really simple example: There is a nuclear missle heading toward New York with its millions of people. You have the ability to push the only button available which will redirect it to the next target, a town with just 1 baby and no one else in it. Do you push the button? Either way people will die, you can choose inaction and millions perish, or you can force the sacrifice of a single individual to save millions.

Going strictly on the information provided. I am forced to choose the larger number, because it creates less harm, but I consider the outcome of either action immoral and as such, I expect and accept the responsibility of the immoral act.

For me the “Intent” of the action means nothing, only the outcome determines if it was moral.

Your wording is a little strange, but I believe you are saying you would change the target. Which means we would be in agreement.

As for the intent, nothing is that cut and dry. Intent plays a huge role in the morality of the situation. Just in our legal system alone whether it was first degree murder or manslaughter lies solely on intent. Take for example someone trying to feed the hungry, but accidently causes someone to choke on their food and die. Does that make them or feeding the hungry immorale solely because of the result? Of course not, it is not that cut and dry.

For the Stalin and halucaust stuff, that doesn't fall under one for the many morality reasoning. It is a basic assumption that in reference to our discussion, the one making the decision is going to be objective, unbiased, and mostly sane.

I’ve not been making that assumption, nor have I been making the assumption that everyone has the same morals.

Those atrocities occured partly because the leadership was none of the above. Thus, trying to discredit the reasoning because of some lunatics who wielded a crazy version of it and did terrible acts is not relevent to the discussion. This is just like the Islamic religion. There are clerics who misuse the teachings to create crazed terrorists, but this doesn't discredit the religion as whole because some missuse and misinterrpret it.

While theses people do have there own “misinterpretation” of what “One for many” stand for, it doesn’t change the fact in there eyes , that what they were doing was morally right. This is why I judge morality by the outcome, not the intent. It is to easy for people to say, I had good intention to being with. It doesn’t change the fact that the outcome was immoral.

All morale systems are worthless if you judge them by the results of them being misused by lunatics. There is no point in continuing this discussion unless you will accept the assumption that the one making the morale choices is objective, unbaised, and mostly sane. Otherwise any morale system can be discredited by citing how it can be missused by a mad man.

It doesn’t matter if it was 1 baby or 500. I picked 500 because it seemed more realistic. As for telling the people they must die (assuming we are using my aids example), I have no problem telling them, because in my view I am morally right, even though it may not be morally right in your view or there view.

But why do you view that as morally right? Mattaru and I have both explained our sources of morality and basis, but you have not well explained yours beyond that it disagrees with me, which is nothing on its own.

As for actually addressing the reversed of my aids example, I think my response to your simple exampled covered it. In a case where neither side has a direct cause to each other, but one group must die, and then the outcome no matter what is immoral, even though I’m forced to pick between the two, but that answer is based on the limited information provided.

Both outcomes have bad outcomes, but I wouldn't say that makes both immoral. In my moral system, not acting when it could lower the total loss of life would be the only immoral choice. However, if I'm reading this right you would be in agreement to save the most people like with the nuclear weapon example earlier which confuses me because it seems to disagree with the rest of your posts.

Since when are people in the US forced to be test subjects for new drug treatments?

By the way, that is also considered “The Straw man argument”, since I never said people in the US where being forced to test drugs.

Not really considering it was my example. Addtionaly, unless someone specifies otherwise in an example you should assume basic rules of society are in effect, which in this case no one is forced to be test subjects in any 1st world country. So the fact that you would assume he was forced (which would make it worthless as a self-sacrifice example which was the whole purpose of it) is totally out of place. This should be common sense. :?

 

[Pascal]

Ok, let me address this, since it seems to be more important issues. The source of my moral code comes from my religious views, I’m intently limiting this response, as I don’t want this to lead to a religion debate.

But why do you view that as morally right? Mattaru and I have both explained our sources of morality and basis, but you have not well explained yours beyond that it disagrees with me, which is nothing on its own.

It steams from the belief that all actions are both good and evil, that no action is purely good or purely evil (The normal view of morally right and morally wrong). So since no action is with out good and evil, to determine which choose is moral, I must choose what I perceive is going to create the less amount of evil. This does not always go hand in hand with what will produce the most good. This is best illustrated in the aids example. While finding a cure for aids is the greater good, it comes at the price of a greater evil. While letting the aids victims die is horrible, it is less evil than murder, because theses people are already dying of a natural event. Death is a part of life, and is not always more inherently evil, things must die.

My morals also dictate responsibility for the amount of good and evil created. The action I choose dictates all events to follow and those events will relate by how much evil was produced and how much good was produced. While at the time I may have perceive my action as being the morally correct chose because it produced the less amount of evil, it can turn out to be wrong chose. If it does turn out to be wrong, I still must accept the events to follow even though at the time, I though I was creating less evil. My intent doesn’t change the fact that more evil was created than I perceived.

EDIT
While this may sound like a Ying Yang theory, it is a bit different. Ying Yang (as I understand it) assumes good and evil works on a slide ruler. In my view they are two independent entities.

 

[Pascal]

As for the intent, nothing is that cut and dry. Intent plays a huge role in the morality of the situation. Just in our legal system alone whether it was first degree murder or manslaughter lies solely on intent. Take for example someone trying to feed the hungry, but accidently causes someone to choke on their food and die. Does that make them or feeding the hungry immorale solely because of the result? Of course not, it is not that cut and dry.

Intent may affect the legal out come; but law doesn’t determine the morality in my opinion. I consider hunting for sport immoral, but it is still legal. Personally I don’t think we should be passing legations on the grounds of morality. Murder should be illegal because the action preformed physically interferes with the right of another. (Yes, I’m aware this isn’t how our system works, it’s just my view on it).

While intent can have an effect on the amount of good or evil created, it doesn’t change the fact that the out come produced more evil than another possible chose (this should make more since based on my previous post). Just for clarification of my use of words, intent isn’t an action. I can intend to feed the poor, but not actually do it. So while the actually action of feeding the poor, is a good thing, the death of the person is still an evil thing. Where a moral chose comes in, is did I have another chose which would produce less evil. The answer would be some times yes and some times no.

Your wording is a little strange, but I believe you are saying you would change the target. Which means we would be in agreement.

Both outcomes have bad outcomes, but I wouldn't say that makes both immoral. In my moral system, not acting when it could lower the total loss of life would be the only immoral choice. However, if I'm reading this right you would be in agreement to save the most people like with the nuclear weapon example earlier which confuses me because it seems to disagree with the rest of your posts.

I would be in agreement in this limited example. I can think of examples where I would choose differently.

Let’s say the 500 people are middle aged, and the million people are all 95 year old people and this is every last person on earth. By choosing to save the greater number of people you doom the human race. In this case the chose would be to save the 500, rather than the million.

Both actions produce more evil than good, so I say both actions are immoral, but the only moral chose I can make is to pick the action which procedure less evil. While my chose is moral because it procedure less evil. I still must accept the consequences that accrue from that action, which is immoral. (Works on the assumption that evil produces evil and good produces good). Some evil action will come back to me in relation to the evil I created. I can expect this action to be worse than any reward I may get for the good created, because the evil was greater in either chose.

That is really hard to explain, I’m hoping my example illustrate it.

 

[Rones]

Kind of understanding your view. How do you determine what is evil? The closest thing I can relate to this would be a utilitarian approach that only worked to minimize unhappiness and removed the happiness created from the equation.

Second, your morality on intent seems to lack a buffer for accidents. When actions happen as the person intended, it is fairly straight foward to judge it right or wrong. However, when something does not turn out as intended (an accident), your view judges only the outcome. My view would judge it based on the intent with a some consideration of the outcome.

 

[Pascal]

Sorry for the delay in my reply, having trouble trying to figure out the best way to explain, since my view on things isn’t the same as the traditional views.

How do you determine what is evil?

The simple answer is harm, (That which has a negative affects on the interests or welfare of an individual or a group).

The degree of harm is determined by how many negative effects, I cause, and how many I contribute too. The ones I cause having a higher weight than the ones I contribute too. It is also determined by the valuing one harm over another.

It also some times comes down to a gut reaction (which I can’t explain).

I would kill a person who is trying to kill me, but I won’t kill a person to eat them to survive, even though the opposite of either would lead to my death. I would on the other hand, eat a person who had already died (assuming it was the only other means to survive).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_ethic

The closest thing I can relate to this would be a utilitarian approach that only worked to minimize unhappiness and removed the happiness created from the equation.

There is actually a form of utilitarian like this called Negative Utilitarianism.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Utilitarian#Negative_utilitarianism

Second, your morality on intent seems to lack a buffer for accidents. When actions happen as the person intended, it is fairly straight foward to judge it right or wrong. However, when something does not turn out as intended (an accident), your view judges only the outcome. My view would judge it based on the intent with a some consideration of the outcome.

It’s not really that intent doesn’t play a role; it is that the intent/chose and outcome are mutually exclusive of one another.

I chose to feed a homeless person and he chokes to death. I’m investigated by the police, I go to jail, I lose my job because I can’t go to work, I’m found not guilty.

The investigation, going to jail, losing my job is all negative effect caused by the person dying (which was a bad thing). They still happened even though my original intent wasn’t to kill the guy, but instead an unforeseen accident.

Being found not guilty is a good thing that comes from the original intent/chose of feeding the homeless person (which was a good thing). Both events independently had an effect on future events.

It’s hard to think about from a legal standpoint, but instead think about it more like Karma.

EDIT:
After rereading the thread, when I said:

Going strictly on the information provided. I am forced to choose the larger number, because it creates less harm, but I consider the outcome of either action immoral and as such, I expect and accept the responsibility of the immoral act.

For me the “Intent” of the action means nothing, only the outcome determines if it was moral.

It was a poor chose of wording of what I meant. When I said “Intent” of the action means nothing only the outcome determines if it was moral. What I meant was the Intent doesn’t change the outcome if it was good or bad (i.e. moral or immoral). Both outcomes can't be immoral if the outcome determines if it was moral.