Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on January 16, 2011, 05:21:37 pm
-
Before I finish the question begun above, I realize this is the completely wrong forum for this, but I wanted to get the opinions and thoughts of people learned than myself on this thought. So if a mod could move this into General that would be awesome.
Okay, so I was listening to NPR while doing the dishes a bit ago(I was waiting for Echoes to come on) and the host and guest were talking about the guests book about Charles Deslondes (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Deslondes) who planned and led the 1811 German Coast slave revolt. It sparked a "discussion" between me and my father not only as to the benefit of talking ad nauseum about what in his mind was a small and forgettable event, but also what the difference between Deslondes and the historcal slave revolt leader of Spartacus whom history has largely treated as a hero, so I ask the following:
When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?
That is what I seek opinion and deeper thinking on.
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
-
When you feel your freedom is more important than the person's life you are about to take.
But remember you'll have to live with that decision, so...
-
Ah yes, the classic question: how many crimes must be committed to achieve justice - bearing in mind that your own justice might very well be a relative one. For better or worse, our world is built on that premise.
Just keep in mind that (as Battuta was saying) there is no "absolute right" here, as some wrongdoing is always present; ultimately, he or she who is responsible for the lives and deaths of others must bear that burden.
-
When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?
At the same point at which it becomes ok for any other reason as well.
But then again, the slave owners would definitely not have agreed with the notion that killing is wrong. So if we have a slave owner who doesn't think killing for stupid reasons is ok (such as if your slave just decides to leave) and then their slave kills them for freedom or pretty much whatever other reason, who am I to say that it was wrong? The slave owner didn't think killing was wrong and then he was killed. If the slave owner doesn't have a problem with being killed (and they can't have a problem with that without also having a problem with killing slaves, which they didn't have a problem with) then I don't have a problem with it.
-
It never does.
-
It is never okay to kill for your freedom or ideals or what have you.
That said, sometimes it is necessary, in the defense of some of what is covered in the above two terms. That said, if you have to kill someone to preserve either, someone, somewhere ****ed up very, very badly.
-
When there are no other options remaining. Not for you, necessarily, but as a group.
So basically, like the others, but without the boilerplate "killing is always and only wrong" disclaimer. It is the option to be taken last, certainly. This means it is less valid, not invalid.
-
meh. life, death, who cares in the longrun anyway.
-
It depends entirely where you derive your ethics. I think that someone who "owns" you and expresses a disregard for your life represents a clear and present threat to that life. Thus, killing them is as justifiable as self defense.
If not, then if they threaten you while you escape, then that becomes self defense.
Honestly, I don't imagine having any great difficulty killing someone who claimed to own me that way; no more than I'd have in killing someone with a gun to my face.
-
"You reap what you sow, Artyom. Force answers force, war breeds war, and death only brings death. In order to break this vicous cycle one must do more then just act without any thought or doubt" - Khan, Metro 2033.
The problem with many slave revolts is simply that they all get themselves killed without actually having changed anything, and then get portrayed as 'terrorists'. It's ineffective, especially in today's world. Non violent protests attract much more attention.
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
um...
Here's a situation. You are facing a madman with a chainsaw. He will kill you if you do nothing. You have a pistol and are an expert marksman. You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.
So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary. By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.
Do I summarize your position accurately?
EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom. Were they wrong to do so?
-
When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?
At the same point at which it becomes ok for any other reason as well.
I agree.
As for the general topic of killing itself, my opinion is that it's always contextual. I don't believe there's a blanket example you can use and from then-on apply it to say that killing is either okay or not okay in any circumstance.
I think for the most part, people do not have to die. Everyone, no matter who you are, has a family, friends, people who care about them. When you kill a man, you affect at the very least, two other people, whose state affects the people around them. This ripple effect is almost as bad as the death itself, if not even worse in some cases.
Also, Goober, whilst my personal belief is that it would be permissible by my view to shoot the chainsaw wielding bloke and inflict lethal force, I don't believe that it's the only option. What if he's at a distance from you, could you not attempt to get him talking? If you could get him to calm down and drop the thing without anyone being wounded or killed, that, in my opinion, would be the most positive conclusion to the series of events possible from the point at which you became involved.
And on topic, I agree with NGTM-1R's response. It's definitely not the first option to be taken, but if there's no other way, having your freedom taken isn't okay either. And it is a rather significant issue. Especially if other people are affected and their freedoms are also taken, I think one would be in the wrong to not do anything.
-
EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom. Were they wrong to do so?
The differences between 1776 and 2011 are so vast this is almost like comparing apples to oranges.
1776:
1) Colonies under rule of a monarchy. King later declared insane.
2) Colonists several thousand miles away from their government. Messages would often take weeks to travel.
3) Not much difference between colonists' arms and the military's arms.
2011:
1) States under the rule of a representative democracy.
2) Citizens may be far away from Washington D.C., but messages and petitions travel virtually instantaneously.
3) Huge gap between the citizens' weaponry and military arms.
So actually, let me clarify: There's no excuse in a modern, Western democratic society to resort to violence for liberty's sake. I can't say the same for other societies, but it should be Western democracies' responsibility to push for reform and human rights in those countries where violence is seen as necessary.
"We should be pouring our heart and soul into politics....but no one should have to spill their blood."
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
um...
Here's a situation. You are facing a madman with a chainsaw. He will kill you if you do nothing. You have a pistol and are an expert marksman. You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.
So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary. By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.
Do I summarize your position accurately?
You make a good point. Morals are a fluid construct, and can never be nailed down. Hell, look at the arguments over software or digital media piracy. One man will say it's theft, while another will argue the principle and defend the act. Morals can't be used as an accurate gauge to determine the validity of an act, and this only becomes more apparent in an argument with widely-varied viewpoints and opinions.
But the fact remains; to take the life of another human being is wrong. There's no reason, at all, ever, that justifies murder. It's always wrong. As in your example, it could perhaps be necessary, but it's still a ****ing bad thing to do. I fail to understand how a logical argument can be constructed that results in the portrayal of murder in a positive and just light.
In that vein, "taking a life for the cause of freedom" is such a vague concept. Should it be truly necessary, like if the President is about to turn the orbital G.O.D. satellites on the Earth's surface, then it's probably a good idea. That said, if the rebellion is truly just, any deaths would be noted and those responsible held accountable when the dust settles. If you're truly taking a life for the cause of freedom, then you should be able to accept that murder is wrong and those who do so should lose their hard-won liberty.
-
That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished? By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less?
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
I am a little curious about your stance on this. I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences. Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature. Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act.
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies. If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded. The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
um...
Here's a situation. You are facing a madman with a chainsaw. He will kill you if you do nothing. You have a pistol and are an expert marksman. You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.
So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary. By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.
Do I summarize your position accurately?
EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom. Were they wrong to do so?
Indeed you do, and of course it is wrong; it is simply less wrong than the alternative. I doubt that many men or women would say 'I wish I were in this position'; they would, after the fact, regret that it had been necessary and even occurred.
Killing is always wrong. It is somehow, however, necessary. Don't confuse the two.
That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished? By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less?
Ah, but the inaction of failing to kill may permit an even greater evil, meaning that those who kill for a cause may do less evil than those who do not. For example, a man with a gun who stands by and allows the axe-wielding psychopath above to butcher someone is clearly doing a greater wrong than he would if he fired the gun.
-
That's foolish, so those who bore the greatest burden should then be punished? By the ones who did nothing to attain said freedom no less?
Ah, but the inaction of failing to kill may permit an even greater evil, meaning that those who kill for a cause may do less evil than those who do not. For example, a man with a gun who stands by and allows the axe-wielding psychopath above to butcher someone is clearly doing a greater wrong than he would if he fired the gun.
Which I agree with, but I think we got are debate wires crossed. I was arguing that Mef's point that in a revolution those who acted to bring about the change should in turn be punished for their actions, was silly. If you fought to bring down a tyrannical government you bore the greatest weight to bring about that change for your entire society. The only ones who could try and punish you afterwards would be the do nothings, who benefited from the revolution but sacrificed nothing to attain that freedom. To me that is fiundamentally wrong.
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
I am a little curious about your stance on this. I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences. Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature. Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act.
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies. If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded. The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.
Oh, my stance on this is formed from a completely (well, partially) synthetic morality that I don't believe has any empirical basis. It's proscriptive, not descriptive. Reality is totally amoral and killing is advantageous all the time. I just advocate a moral system in which killing is proscribed as always wrong.
-
It's never okay. Killing is not morally permissible and is by any reasonable standard always wrong.
It may sometimes become necessary.
I am a little curious about your stance on this. I was given the impression your view of morality was that it was fundamentally a construct of genetics and societal influences. Genetically I do not see how killing runs counter to any morals bred into us by nature. Life and death are fundamental to the cycle of life in the wild, for food, for mating rights or for territory, and as far as I can tell animals do not lament the act.
While modern first tier societies have the luxury of finding killing reprehensible thats not true for all societies. If you were raised as a Spartan or Samurai killing would be a fundamental part of your societies' morals, indeed your prowess would in some places be heralded. The only overarching moral standard on killing that I can fathom is in the form of some deity that judges our actions, otherwise I would assume right and wrong of it is only judged by your circumstances.
Oh, my stance on this is formed from a completely (well, partially) synthetic morality that I don't believe has any empirical basis. It's proscriptive, not descriptive. Reality is totally amoral and killing is advantageous all the time. I just advocate a moral system in which killing is proscribed as always wrong.
Aw :blah: I was hoping you had something a lot more empirical up your sleeve. You know, MIT Studies, genetic imperatives... something we could have a super awesome debate about.
-
For example, a man with a gun who stands by and allows the axe-wielding psychopath above to butcher someone is clearly doing a greater wrong than he would if he fired the gun.
That doesn't make sense though; if we assume that shooting the psychopath is the best option the man has, then it cannot be wrong. Right and wrong are concepts which basically boil down to what one should or should not do, and that makes the idea of a situation where there are only wrong choices kind of an oxymoron. It cannot be wrong to make the best choice.
-
I disagree. The best option available in a situation may still be very wrong; I don't think anyone would dispute this in certain arbitrarily constructed forced-choice scenarios. If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong.
I think you figure out what to do in a situation by summing all the moral vectors and finding the one that's closest to good.
Speaking experientially I'm sure there are scenarios where one can make the best choice and still feel it was deeply wrong. That doesn't mean you have to suffer from it; you may be the kind of person who has no trouble doing the least wrong thing.
-
Aw :blah: I was hoping you had something a lot more empirical up your sleeve. You know, MIT Studies, genetic imperatives... something we could have a super awesome debate about.
Well I mean, it benefits our society if we all agree it's wrong to kill people. If it were okay to kill a guy for taking your parking spot or something, then we'd have a lot of wasted talent and effort. So it's beneficial to your tribe, state, or in the long run your whole species, if we all agree killing is only permitted under extreme circumstances, and even then isn't something to feel good about.
-
Aw :blah: I was hoping you had something a lot more empirical up your sleeve. You know, MIT Studies, genetic imperatives... something we could have a super awesome debate about.
Well I mean, it benefits our society if we all agree it's wrong to kill people. If it were okay to kill a guy for taking your parking spot or something, then we'd have a lot of wasted talent and effort. So it's beneficial to your tribe, state, or in the long run your whole species, if we all agree killing is only permitted under extreme circumstances, and even then isn't something to feel good about.
Yeah pretty much. Good utility.
-
When does it become okay to kill for your freedom?
When the one who enslaved you rather dies than frees you.
-
I disagree. The best option available in a situation may still be very wrong; I don't think anyone would dispute this in certain arbitrarily constructed forced-choice scenarios. If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong.
Well... I disagree. If it's absolutely unavoidable that you're going to have to choose either killing one innocent or two innocents, then the fact that you'll kill someone is not your choice, and therefore cannot be your fault, and therefore cannot be wrong. You cannot at the same time say "killing an innocent is wrong" and "killing an innocent cannot be avoided", because the former requires that there's a choice between killing an innocent and not killing an innocent, while the latter precludes that. Whether an act is right or wrong can only be determined in context of what options you had available; judging an act by comparing it to outcomes which are impossible doesn't make sense, and that's what you do if you say that choosing to kill one instead of two is still wrong - killing is only wrong when compared to not killing, and in this scenario that's simply not an option, and therefore in this scenario, killing cannot be wrong.
In any case, I don't only think this is just a silly academic scenario, but rather a fundamentally flawed one. That situation is essentially a fallacy since you could simply choose to choose neither! Nothing can force you to choose either A or B while leaving the actual choice of whether to pick A or B up to you. It's just not possible. You can always simply not choose. If something forces you to choose, then they have to also choose which one you'll pick (or leave it to chance).
I think you figure out what to do in a situation by summing all the moral vectors and finding the one that's closest to good.
Speaking experientially I'm sure there are scenarios where one can make the best choice and still feel it was deeply wrong. That doesn't mean you have to suffer from it; you may be the kind of person who has no trouble doing the least wrong thing.
Sure, there's situations where you only got choices which will make you feel bad afterwards. Humans are silly that way.
-
often people will say something along the line of "killing is only acceptable as an absolute last resort to be taken when there is absolutely no other alternative" these people are intellectually dishonest, because if this is truly their position then that means that if you have an option aside from killing, lets say for example "allow your self to be murdered by a psychopath", then you must take that option, cause after all, at least you haven't killed anybody.
I am of the opinion that any action is appropriate if the sum total consequences of that action yield the best likely outcome. for instance, someone is going on a rampage, it is appropriate to kill this person if you get the chance because not killing them will likely result in considerably larger amount of death than not. that is ends justify the means, because the ends include all consequences of the means.
nb4retardsaysblowupabustokillafly
-
If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong.
This is an invalid scenario, however, because in the situations in which killing is already morally "on the table" so to speak, innocence is typically not. At the very least we're usually up to intent or attempt.
-
People don't be ridiculous, morality is whatever feels good to you.
-
Also, Goober, whilst my personal belief is that it would be permissible by my view to shoot the chainsaw wielding bloke and inflict lethal force, I don't believe that it's the only option. What if he's at a distance from you, could you not attempt to get him talking? If you could get him to calm down and drop the thing without anyone being wounded or killed, that, in my opinion, would be the most positive conclusion to the series of events possible from the point at which you became involved.
Very well. You attempt to reason with the madman. Being a madman, he pays you no attention. He quickly, but not very efficiently, dispatches you with his chainsaw.
Congratulations, you have successfully avoided the issue and are now dead. :p
EDIT: As for the rest of you: the American colonists in the War for Independence killed many British soldiers in the fight for freedom. Were they wrong to do so?
The differences between 1776 and 2011 are so vast this is almost like comparing apples to oranges.
That's avoiding the question. But you skirt around the issue in your subsequent paragraphs, so I might hazard a guess. Am I correct in deducing that you do not view the colonists' killing of British soldiers as wrong?
But the fact remains; to take the life of another human being is wrong. There's no reason, at all, ever, that justifies murder. It's always wrong. As in your example, it could perhaps be necessary, but it's still a ****ing bad thing to do. I fail to understand how a logical argument can be constructed that results in the portrayal of murder in a positive and just light.
You seem to be equating "murder" with "taking the life of another human being". I don't believe they are the same thing. Here are some examples of taking the life of a human which I would not define as murder:
1) Defending yourself, or another person, with deadly force, in situations similar to the "madman with a chainsaw" example.
2) Carrying out the execution of a legally convicted criminal sentenced to death.
3) Killing an opponent during wartime on the field of battle.
Here's a situation. You are facing a madman with a chainsaw. He will kill you if you do nothing. You have a pistol and are an expert marksman. You have the ability to kill him before he kills you.
So, in that situation, self-defense with deadly force is necessary. By your opinion, however, it is wrong, and not morally permissible.
Do I summarize your position accurately?
Indeed you do, and of course it is wrong; it is simply less wrong than the alternative. I doubt that many men or women would say 'I wish I were in this position'; they would, after the fact, regret that it had been necessary and even occurred.
Killing is always wrong. It is somehow, however, necessary. Don't confuse the two.
The problem is that you equate "wrong" with "not morally permissible" here. Generally, we say that if an act is "not morally permissible", any person who commits such an act is an evil person, who should face the penalty of law. But here you seem to be giving him a free pass based on it being "necessary". Where do we draw the line? Would you give a pass to a rapist who claimed that a rape was "necessary" to relieve his sexual urges?
In contrast, I would draw a distinction between three categories: morally permissible, undesirable but morally justifiable, and morally impermissible. I would say that killing a person in self-defense would fall under the second category. I would also say that murder would fall under the third category.
People don't be ridiculous, morality is whatever feels good to you.
And "do what thou wilt" shall be the whole of the law?
-
I am kidding of course :p
Or am I? The nihilists are rubbing off on me.
-
Gotta watch out for those nihilists...they'll piss on your valued rug.
-
Ignoring every other post in this thread, I'd say it becomes okay when the contributions you can make to society with your freedom outweigh the potential combined contributions to society of the person that you kill and you with impaired freedom.
(also note that this assumes that the person you kill is responsible for your impaired freedom and killing him would return you to "full" freedom, and that one cannot contribute to society while dead)
This doesn't really solve any problems though, it just shifts the evaluations of value from lives and freedom to contributions to society.
-
If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong.
This is an invalid scenario, however, because in the situations in which killing is already morally "on the table" so to speak, innocence is typically not. At the very least we're usually up to intent or attempt.
It is utterly trivial to imagine a scenario in which this is completely untrue.
-
It is utterly trivial to imagine a scenario in which this is completely untrue.
To imagine, yes.
To actually have it in the real world, not so much. You are avoiding the question. Put simply, you use the "innocent people" comment, but you fail utterly to address the issue of people who are not innocent.
-
A morality that works most of the time is about as useless as an argument based on the contention that a single example is some kind of general rule. Why would I need to address the issue of people who are not innocent when the example is a situation that only includes the notional innocent people? It's an illustrative point, not a comprehensive breakdown of every possible scenario.
Morality is an instrumental artifice. No wonder people disagree on the terms - it's an unusually grave form of etiquette.
To actually have it in the real world, not so much
haha this **** probably happens every day
-
A morality that works most of the time is about as useless as an argument based on the contention that a single example is some kind of general rule. Why would I need to address the issue of people who are not innocent when the example is a situation that only includes the notional innocent people?
I'm detecting a contradiction here. You're saying that your example is bad, because it only covers a certain situation. Therefore you don't need to explain?
It's an illustrative point, not a comprehensive breakdown of every possible scenario.
But it's not illustrative at all. You give a scenario that'll get general agreement and that doesn't tell us anything about the questions we've been asking concerning why killing someone is always and only wrong.
"Killing people is bad."
"So why is killing Ted Bundy/Pol Pot/Stalin bad?"
"Because killing innocent people is bad."
It's a massive red herring because it doesn't address the point and never did.
haha this **** probably happens every day
Okay, show me. I'm quite serious here; construct for me a situation that could in some manner be regarded as normal where you can either kill two completely innocent people or one completely innocent person as a conscious choice.
-
A morality that works most of the time is about as useless as an argument based on the contention that a single example is some kind of general rule.
:wtf:
I still don't understand this sentence after reading it half a dozen times. Try again?
As far as the original question goes, I can only hope I never find myself in a situation where I need to decide.
-
Gotta watch out for those nihilists...they'll piss on your valued rug.
That's a nice marmot man.
-
Before I finish the question begun above, I realize this is the completely wrong forum for this, but I wanted to get the opinions and thoughts of people learned than myself on this thought. So if a mod could move this into General that would be awesome.
You're walking a very dangerous tightrope here. You're banned from Gen Disc. That doesn't mean you can do an end run around that by deliberately posting in another forum and asking for it to be moved. If I see that happen again a ban will swiftly follow.
-
It's a massive red herring because it doesn't address the point and never did.
Of course it does. It addresses the point perfectly. If you'll recall from your calm and careful reading of the thread before responding, the point was: "I disagree. The best option available in a situation may still be very wrong; I don't think anyone would dispute this in certain arbitrarily constructed forced-choice scenarios. If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong. "
Okay, show me. I'm quite serious here; construct for me a situation that could in some manner be regarded as normal where you can either kill two completely innocent people or one completely innocent person as a conscious choice.
A conscious forced choice, remember. For example: you are a paramedic with time to treat either one person with major injuries or two people with slightly less major but still fatal injuries. Resource allocation problems like this happen all the time. Or, more actively, there are two groups of people in an unstable structure and rescuing one will cause the other to be killed in the collapse. Or there are two groups of people stranded on a mountain, about to die of exposure, and you have only time for one helicopter flight. Or you have several babies in respirators and you only have enough oxygen available to keep a subset of them breathing.
Or hell, here's a good one: you have one bomb and a choice between two critical targets, each one in a house. One house contains one innocent person, the other two. The targets are otherwise equivalent.
You can go on about how this isn't valid because their lives are already in danger, it's a question of who to save rather than who to kill, but in the end morality is synthetic and constructed and if you disagree it's simply because you've built a different one. As far as I'm concerned you're making a decision to kill someone - circumstances may have forced it, sure, but in the end circumstances force everything - and the justifications and guilt involved are the same.
-
I don't think any sane person ever chooses to kill, so it's sort of a moot question anyway. Choice, in this situation, is a very difficult thing to define. Sometimes, because of the nature of the world, and the nature of the species, it is considered neccessary, but ask any soldier whether he wants to be in kill or be killed situations and the answer would, or at least should, be 'No'.
-
Hold on now, thats not valid, this thread is about killing someone; not having some situation where you can only save a limited number of people. In those scenarios the fact that the victims lives are in jeopardy is not of your own making, regardless of your decision some or all are going to die. Deciding who lives isn't the same as deciding who your going to kill.
-
Hold on now, thats not valid, this thread is about killing someone; not having some situation where you can only save a limited number of people. In those scenarios the fact that the victims lives are in jeopardy is not of your own making, regardless of your decision some or all are going to die. Deciding who lives isn't the same as deciding who your going to kill.
in the end morality is synthetic and constructed and if you disagree it's simply because you've built a different one. As far as I'm concerned you're making a decision to kill someone - circumstances may have forced it, sure, but in the end circumstances force everything - and the justifications and guilt involved are the same.
I don't think killing someone by neglect and killing someone with a bullet to the head are meaningfully different. To the hiker trapped on the mountain dying of exposure "they're leaving us" is pretty equivalent to "they shot us in the face."
This being morality I expect that the difference is one of personal belief and no amount of yelling will meaningfully impact it.
The question at hand is not the original post topic but this dispute:
If you have to kill one innocent person or kill two, you'll kill one, but it'll still be wrong, just less wrong.
This is an invalid scenario, however, because in the situations in which killing is already morally "on the table" so to speak, innocence is typically not. At the very least we're usually up to intent or attempt.
As far as I'm concerned killing is on the table when you have to make a choice between lives.
-
Granted I'm not drawing on a bounty of empirical data this isn't my field, but I cannot fathom strangulating someone who otherwise would live has the same moral impact as having to make a decision between saving one person and not another. Otherwise EMTs and doctors should be absolute basket cases.
They both will have emotional impact to be sure, but taking a life should have a larger consequence then not being able to save someone. One is active one passive.
-
Right right, that's the point I was going to make as soon as I got back to a PC (which I have), that there may well be a difference between killing someone who would otherwise live and failing to save someone who would otherwise die.
I just think that in the context of this discussion they both fall under the context of 'killing'. You can create a distinction between actively killing and passively killing if it's useful.
Doctors and EMTs are basket cases, though. :nervous:
-
Just want to point out "having a cause", as mentioned earlier,... is such a wonderfully loaded... and historically so often abused phrase.
Some of the most heinous crimes against humanity have been committed by people who were totally convinced they "had a cause".
As far as my opinion on the subject goes... even if the act of killing objectively saves lives in one instance... taking another human beings life has a profound effect on the person committing the deed - no matter the circumstances... it shouldn't be rationalized, not justified and certainly should not be trivialized without context just to be generalized right after.
Furthermore, I believe the moment you justify killing for any potential cause that same justification will sooner or later be abused, possibly by someone else in a different context. Therefore i am firmly against any kind of justification and especially any kind of justification by hypothetical example.
Just imagine someone goes away from this discussion with one of the justifications that were given in their head and you only read later in the news of how these justifications were "applied" in a totally different context... I believe that's the truly relevant hypothetical outcome of justifying killing with mere hypothetical wordplay.