watched 'Never let me go' last night, left you thinking about similar moral question with different circumstances...who is more important...story about a clone programmed to believe that he is morally right to give himself to save another life
Finally: Ahaha yes Estan breaking out the classic trolley example, nice. I still want to see you make a video on gay incest, I still have yet to see anyone on youtube tackle that one, or even read any argument for or against it in any text I've read :P .
@NikEmmer yeah good points. And yeah lying to the patient, haha. What would be more beneficial, "you have one week to live, make the most of it." One week later "...just kidding you're fine."
Or
"You're fine." One week later, "actually you're gonna die right about now, you really only had one week to live." "WTF, doctor. I could have gone skydiving!"
Continuing: IE: can never intentionally compromise patient care in order to benefit other patients, can never lie to a patient even if it will benefit patients health. Basically it's a "though shalt not do x regardless of circumstances" type of model. That doesn't really prove the existence of a higher power, it's simply the set of rules most hospitals have adopted. What we're dealing with here isn't exactly new or controversial, this debate has been kicking around since the 19th century. cont..
Continuing: However I actually do feel as if it's rather a "cowardly" view of morality. It's basically saying I'm not going to take any risks even if there is a huge reward of potential happiness. IMO Utilitarianism is the riskier, but more complete view of morality. With that being said: there is absolutely no way that in the real world a situation where one human life would be legally compromised in order to save the lives of 5 within the medical field. Medicine is based upon deontological law
Classic Utilitarianism vs. Deontology. The reason many devout christians identify so much with Kant's view of morality is because it presupposes a categorical objective imperative (most often assumed to be God or set in place by God) and is basically one big "though shalt not do x". To me deontology is a fairly reasonable position, because utilitarianism is highly subjective in nature (what constitutes "most happiness", how can we predict consequences of our actions perfectly etc..) Continued...
What's the difference of killing a few hundred/or thousand innocent Iraqi civilians lives to save the possiblity of a chance of maybe Saddam using WMD he didn't have and wasn't really looking for? Surely Epydemic is against the invasion of Iraq.
How would saving the life of the CEOs benefit society? Presumably insurance will provide for their families, so there is no argument there for privileging their lives over the hobo's. How about all of the crimes committed and people killed in the ordinary exercise of their work as CEOs (killing miners and oil workers, exploiting poor laborers in Asia, etc.) Their deaths may well be a good.
@HConstantine haha that's one opinion. To me the fact that the five people are CEOs and the other guy is a hobo is largely irrelevant, I was only using those people because it was what epydemic had used originally.
Everyone in the world (or a given country) has their organ compatibility information kept in a database. If 2 people who have an average income that is more than yours they can harvest your organs.
How about getting to know other ethical theories other than utilitarianism. Try some Kantian deontology: "treat every human being always as an ends and never as a means to an end".
I'm drunk right now, but If you're ever in DC area, there is a beer (or bev of your choosing) waiting to be bought for you... hit me up; we can talk about Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, Dawkins, Sagan, Ingersall, Huxley, Russell, Greene, Kraxney, Sagan,and Barnes (I'm sure I'm missing many)
@andymerkel Sick, never been to DC but I live in "the nation's capital" up north, so I should hit it up some time. See if the white house is as sweet as our parliament buildings or something.
1 consequence of the practice of systemic organ harvesting is the stress put on society, that we are not simply able to deal with as advanced monkeys.
And its easy to see that it is indeed a weighing of consequences, which Epydemic2020 denies. Lets say the Hobo is blind, deaf, has a braintumour and 1 week to live. Does that change nothing?
And is taking a life always wrong? How about your own; throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades.
@CognosSquare Yeah I should have mentioned in the video that I really don't give a crap about whether it's a CEO, a hobo, the queen of england. I was only using the CEO/hobo thing because it was what epydemic had used.
Yup, 1 true. Some other people mentioned this. And yeah, other valid points.
Religious people in general often have a problem with understanding that any situation is extremely complex morally. We're wired to simplify everything to make fast decisions, but there's so many
@CognosSquare variables to any problem like this. And so many impossible to calculate consequences. We could even get into some kind of butterfly causing a tsunami shit if we wanted. Who knows what consequences an action will have.
When as my dilemma addressed, the hobo would be killed secretly, no stress would happen to society as a whole because society at large wouldn't know about it. The only person who knows would be the doctor.
I don't see the need to argue that consequences are totally irrelevant, just that utilitarianism doesn't account for morality perfectly.
I certainly don't argue that taking life is always wrong. (I advocate a moral hierarchy aka value pluralism)
@Epydemic2020 Ok thanks for clarifying. I dont think a hobo was that great of an example. They often have a lot of friends. Maybe pick socialite & hermit. Or just take the trollyproblem
There is no "In this situation no one got robbed/killed/etc so this is a perfect 100% score". There are infinite ways of handling a situation. All consequences good and bad from the actions must be weighed from this moment and to "forever". By accruing wisdom about consequenses can we gradually do "whats right"
I agree. You can continually tweak the scenarios to make a new dilemma. Its not really advantages to nitpick the analogy, both the trolley and organ donor dilemmas are meant to show that ceteris paribus (one of the few times I get to use an econ term in philosophy, it means "all other things being held equal")"murdering an innocent man to save five people is both happiness maximizing and immoral.
@Epydemic2020 "murdering an innocent man to save five people is both happiness maximizing and immoral." This is tricky indeed.
Would you say that morals could be a set of rules that are "best practice generally" but perhaps allow some exceptions to the rule set?
I mean Is there no situation where a lie could be "not immoral". Or taking/giving of a life, stealing/appropriating without consent, etc. Or is this just all immoral but can still bring happiness or even be universially good?
I would say that "maximizing happiness" is a rule/value that works well generally. In actuality, I would say that there are several competing values. I think there is a hierarchy of values. When two values conflict, we don't always know which one trumps the other. It just so happens that "maximizing happiness" is likely near the top of that hierarchy, so what is moral coincides with that value a majority of the time.
I didn't pay attention during the whole thing but here's my opinion on killing someone versus letting them die. I think the reason why killing someone (pushing them in front of the train) is worse is because of the extra emotional damage it causes. We're wired to be more traumatized by a murder over an accidental death.
@Rulymiscreant1 Yeah exactly. It seems a bit odd to define something as being worse BECAUSE we define it as being worse. Heading in the circular reasoning direction. But in the case of morality, it actually does work.
If seeing a strangers penis is bad because we say it's bad, then it actually IS bad because we say it's bad due to the fact that people who think it's bad will be emotionally affected negatively. The action itself isn't anything inherently hurtful, there could be a culture
I'm notorious for complicating simple issues. The trolly problem: WHO are the people on the track? Lets say you have five murder/rapists and 1 murder/rapist.......Kill the five.
So it depends who the people are. And is it okay to firebomb the entire compound of the WBC if it makes everyone happy?
The organ donor analogy is an example of when maximizing wellbeing is immoral. The circumstances in the dilemma involve the doctor secretly killing the hobo.
The analogy doesn't require this to become a non-secret widespread practice. Its just a case study that shows maximizing wellbeing is equivalent to morality. The two are highly correlated, it is a great rule of thumb, but the two terms are not interchangeable.
@Epydemic2020 mm hm but I tried to explain why I think that scenario doesn't work.
If you read in the comments a lot of people have explained how a society which murdered people for their organs would be almost certainly less happy, making the organ harvesting immoral by the gross happiness definition.
Also there are unforeseen consequences that could make the particular case immoral, but if there were a scenario in which the end result was better, I would say that it was moral...
@ubergossen Even if the populace did not know that people were being murdered it would be immoral. The thing about morality is that it's not a one theory sort of thing. There are multiple theories of morality. All of them get some of it right. But, to say that only one theory, i.e. utilitarianism, is right is absurd.
"If you read in the comments a lot of people have explained how a society which murdered people for their organs would be almost certainly less happy"
This example has very little to do with society. It deals with the actions of one individual, it doesn't seek to establish a societal norm. Also, the doctor takes the hobo's life secretly. They can't be unhappy about something they don't know occurred.
@Epydemic2020 Killing someone is just about always the wrong thing to do, but actions themselves can never be inherently immoral or moral. It isn't the action that matters but the result. For example, lying is immoral by most people's standards. But it's simple enough to prove that lying itself isn't inherently immoral, it's the motive that's generally bad and the results which are generally negative.
I'm sure you've heard the jew hiding in the attic scenario. Do you lie to the Nazis?
I advocate a moral hierarchy. that is to say, I think it is intuitively obvious that several objective moral values conflict, but that it is not self-evident which objective values trump each other when they do conflict.
For example, letting your friends die is generally bad (by generally bad I mean that most intentions commonly paired with letting your friends die would be immoral) and lying is generally bad. When you have to lie to protect a friend it gets tricky. continued
That being said, I'd lie to protect Jews. In fact I don't even find that decision very difficult. Also something you may find interesting, we have a biblical example of this taking place and being praised (Rahab lied to protect innocent people). Also, Jesus seems to set up a moral hierarchy. Calling the two greatest commands to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Seems to me like saving your neighbor is the more loving option of the two.
Whatever decision it would be made would be based on love (noble intentions either way). I just think the value of not using someone as a means to and end and murdering them trumps the value of saving the five individuals.
@Epydemic2020 Yet you said it's okay to kill someone as a means to an end of saving your own life. I guess the difference is that you were referring to self defense where you'll be killed BY that person. So you're preventing one murder with another.
I don't disagree with you that killing the hobo inherently seems immoral, that's for sure. I'm just not right away willing to discount the idea that it might be the best thing to do under a very specific set of circumstances.
There seems to be a difference between killing an innocent person vs an attacker. There also seems to be a difference between defending yourself and being the aggressor.
I am open to the idea that killing the hobo could be the best thing to do under a specific set of circumstances as well. Applied ethics is a very difficult subject. A moral dilemma requires two objective values conflicting, so it proves objective morality, but its difficult to tell which objective value is higher.
@Epydemic2020 Yeah, I agree with all of that, so we're on the same page then. Still not sure if you answered the second question about being able to find anything in the bible which you deem immoral but which the bible doesn't point out as being immoral.
@Epydemic2020 I'm not really into arguing whether god exists or whether morals come from god or not since they're both things that's impossible to prove or disprove for certain. But I'm about as sure as I'm sure of anything that if a god exists, it's most certainly not the god described in the bible, that's something I'm more willing to have a discussion about since it's something I feel can be disproved or proved conclusively.
hey, I'm the guy who posed the nationalism question a few months ago. I'm horrible at staying in touch, just ask my mom or my ex...Great answer, I totally concur. Sorry I didn't respond sooner (a bit rude – hierarchy of feedback goes 1. Positive, 2. Negative 3. Nothing; I.e. Battered wife syndrome : ) and I'm ashamed to have given you the third when it should have been the first.)
"Regarding the train track scenario, I had to laugh, because many of my acquaintances hold CEO's in low regard; so in their eyes, the moral high ground would be 5 CEO's perishing/saving the hobo. But I know the point of the exercise. And I'm glad we have both intuitions: 1. the hesitation to push guy; and 2. the ability to logic/reason that it might be better to push 1/save 5. I don't have much to add other than I'm happy that it's not all one or all the other...., thoughts?
I just thought this bit might be worth thinking about since you brought up the similar trolley dilemma.
In the trolley analogy, the lever is the means to and end. (the principle of unintended harm comes in, you tried to save someone with an unintended yet foreseen harm to other innocent people)
If you shove a man, they are the means to an end. They are not merely an unintended but foreseen consequence.
"right-on" regarding seeing how immoral acts complicate things. Even the big debaters don't really talk about this much...I.e. When a God/Chr apologetic asks “without a sacred text or higher power, how do we know right from wrong?” I haven't really heard any of the big atheist/free-thinkers say “can't you see how much it complicates things?” emo baggage/ psych damage is probably just scratching the surface. a thought worth considering / hypothesis worth disproving.
The moral argument is consistent with Christianity, but it doesn't singlehandedly prove Christianity. You gotta prove that a God exists before you can prove which God exists. (The moral argument does narrow down the list of possible deities. Its gotta be a non-contingent deity who behaves morally. polytheism and the like are not proved or disproved by the moral argument).
How would a society look like if people had to live in fear of being killed for organ harvesting? It would have a terrible impact on the total happiness, wouldn't it?
Sounds more like an unwilling hero problem then a trolley problem. Its like a hand grenade in an enclosed space with several people. If you dive on top of the grenade and save everyone's life, you're a hero, if everyone pushes you on top of the grenade, they are all murderers. That's where human rights come into play, the goal of rights is to protect the few from the many.
@JoesephKatana So I guess my answer to the organ issue is that the CEO's are morally unjustified in taking the hobos organs because they wouldn't want their organs harvested by presidents and billionaires (or a mob of hobos). If the hobo volunteers he is a hero. Regardless of the net gain in the isolated situation, society as a whole suffers when the many are allowed to sacrifice the few for their own gain. And stem cell research.
@ubergossen Oh, I was offering stem cell research (for growing organs) as a solution, not as an additional moral dilemma. If the world population starts decreasing then there *might* be a case against stem cell research, until then you can either start holding funerals every time you wipe a layer of dead skin cells off your credenza or spend your time on a more important societal problem.
@JoesephKatana haha okay. I thought you just threw it in at the end as a moral dilemma and I was thinking "what?! I agreed with everything up until that."
But yeah, stem cell research will likely lead to a good solution to the problem of organ failure.
Actively killing someone cannot be compared to selecting between saving the lives of people already in jeopardy, even if it results in the death of one of said people. The mathematical "balancing" of "societal good" really only comes in to the decision making process as a last resort in the latter case, because there is no other criteria to use. It shouldn't, and doesn't (in most people's minds), come into consideration in the former case.
The biggest problem with the hobo/CEO situation for me would be that a society in which the lower rungs of the social ladder are killed off, effectively at random, to sustain the higher rungs would create a climate of fear. A climate of fear is not conducive to a stable or happy society at all.
@BrianTheGoldfish Yeah very true, someone else mentioned this as well. I kindof tried to get at that at the very end but I didn't really explain any of the overall effects it would have.
But yeah, I think there's no question as to whether having a society where we can kill people for their organs is overall bad. Although I still think it's more of a difficult moral question when you take one situation individually.
Causing harm to an innocent individual for the sake of benfiting many others isn't morally justifiable. Yes killing one innocent person to avoid a train killing 5000 might make sense, but it doesn't make it morally just.
A doctor swears an oath to "do no harm", why can't everyone else?
Yes, I know a surgeon causes harm, but that is what surgery is; causing harm to and for the greater benefit of the consenting individual.
@ubergossen No, not the right thing, the lesser of 2 evils. Even though one might pick the lesser of 2 evils, they've not done a morally just thing. Which I know the hypothetical trolley question doesn't ask "Which is the lesser of 2 evils", I'm not saying pushing the guy is the morally right thing.
I also changed the beneficiaries to 5000, as an exaggeration, because then one has to define when the benefits out-weigh the costs, when does a few deaths turn into a tragic death toll.
I understand what you're saying, sometimes you're forced to choose between something morally wrong and something even more morally wrong and you have to do the right thing by being immoral.
But I'd still say that in those scenarios the less immoral option is the moral thing to do in that case.
In any case, we're disagreeing more on language than on what's actually the right/moral way of acting.
@ubergossen There is the language problem and also the compulsion to make the situation black and white.
It's like killing in self-defense, killing is wrong, but given the circumstance it's less wrong. One would expect to be charged with murder as law demands, but would likely be dropped. It doesn't make that act of murder a moral act.
To me, a morally right or wrong thing isn't plastic and I don't like to call an immoral act, justified. Without invoking a slippery slope, it's problematic.
The problem with that definition of morality is that it could go the other way as well and make even less sense.
If we have scenarios where an immoral thing is the right thing to do, we could come up with scenarios where the moral thing is the wrong thing to do.
I understand your point and I still could agree with you... maybe. Have to think about it a bit. I'd still say that an action which is generally immoral but the best thing to do in that situation would be moral
hobo is not a very nice term.
you're pretty cute
eredithM 1 year ago
watched 'Never let me go' last night, left you thinking about similar moral question with different circumstances...who is more important...story about a clone programmed to believe that he is morally right to give himself to save another life
schmeckensie 1 year ago
Finally: Ahaha yes Estan breaking out the classic trolley example, nice. I still want to see you make a video on gay incest, I still have yet to see anyone on youtube tackle that one, or even read any argument for or against it in any text I've read :P .
NikEmmer 1 year ago
@NikEmmer yeah good points. And yeah lying to the patient, haha. What would be more beneficial, "you have one week to live, make the most of it." One week later "...just kidding you're fine."
Or
"You're fine." One week later, "actually you're gonna die right about now, you really only had one week to live." "WTF, doctor. I could have gone skydiving!"
ubergossen 1 year ago
Continuing: IE: can never intentionally compromise patient care in order to benefit other patients, can never lie to a patient even if it will benefit patients health. Basically it's a "though shalt not do x regardless of circumstances" type of model. That doesn't really prove the existence of a higher power, it's simply the set of rules most hospitals have adopted. What we're dealing with here isn't exactly new or controversial, this debate has been kicking around since the 19th century. cont..
NikEmmer 1 year ago
Continuing: However I actually do feel as if it's rather a "cowardly" view of morality. It's basically saying I'm not going to take any risks even if there is a huge reward of potential happiness. IMO Utilitarianism is the riskier, but more complete view of morality. With that being said: there is absolutely no way that in the real world a situation where one human life would be legally compromised in order to save the lives of 5 within the medical field. Medicine is based upon deontological law
NikEmmer 1 year ago
Classic Utilitarianism vs. Deontology. The reason many devout christians identify so much with Kant's view of morality is because it presupposes a categorical objective imperative (most often assumed to be God or set in place by God) and is basically one big "though shalt not do x". To me deontology is a fairly reasonable position, because utilitarianism is highly subjective in nature (what constitutes "most happiness", how can we predict consequences of our actions perfectly etc..) Continued...
NikEmmer 1 year ago
Just one thing - is this an actual proposal the Republicans are trying to pass now that they've taken the House?
Kind of like how they're trying to redefine rape as alright as long as the woman can't prove it..?
geffel 1 year ago
What's the difference of killing a few hundred/or thousand innocent Iraqi civilians lives to save the possiblity of a chance of maybe Saddam using WMD he didn't have and wasn't really looking for? Surely Epydemic is against the invasion of Iraq.
MinervaInTheBrain 1 year ago
How would saving the life of the CEOs benefit society? Presumably insurance will provide for their families, so there is no argument there for privileging their lives over the hobo's. How about all of the crimes committed and people killed in the ordinary exercise of their work as CEOs (killing miners and oil workers, exploiting poor laborers in Asia, etc.) Their deaths may well be a good.
HConstantine 1 year ago
@HConstantine haha that's one opinion. To me the fact that the five people are CEOs and the other guy is a hobo is largely irrelevant, I was only using those people because it was what epydemic had used originally.
ubergossen 1 year ago
This video gave me a crazy idea.
Everyone in the world (or a given country) has their organ compatibility information kept in a database. If 2 people who have an average income that is more than yours they can harvest your organs.
aderek79 1 year ago
How about getting to know other ethical theories other than utilitarianism. Try some Kantian deontology: "treat every human being always as an ends and never as a means to an end".
ThaGMan51 1 year ago
Ubergossen,
I'm drunk right now, but If you're ever in DC area, there is a beer (or bev of your choosing) waiting to be bought for you... hit me up; we can talk about Hitchens, Dennet, Harris, Dawkins, Sagan, Ingersall, Huxley, Russell, Greene, Kraxney, Sagan,and Barnes (I'm sure I'm missing many)
andymerkel 1 year ago
@andymerkel Sick, never been to DC but I live in "the nation's capital" up north, so I should hit it up some time. See if the white house is as sweet as our parliament buildings or something.
ubergossen 1 year ago
The fact that they are CEO/Hobos are irrelevant.
1 consequence of the practice of systemic organ harvesting is the stress put on society, that we are not simply able to deal with as advanced monkeys.
And its easy to see that it is indeed a weighing of consequences, which Epydemic2020 denies. Lets say the Hobo is blind, deaf, has a braintumour and 1 week to live. Does that change nothing?
And is taking a life always wrong? How about your own; throwing yourself on a grenade to save your comrades.
CognosSquare 1 year ago
@CognosSquare Yeah I should have mentioned in the video that I really don't give a crap about whether it's a CEO, a hobo, the queen of england. I was only using the CEO/hobo thing because it was what epydemic had used.
Yup, 1 true. Some other people mentioned this. And yeah, other valid points.
Religious people in general often have a problem with understanding that any situation is extremely complex morally. We're wired to simplify everything to make fast decisions, but there's so many
ubergossen 1 year ago
@CognosSquare variables to any problem like this. And so many impossible to calculate consequences. We could even get into some kind of butterfly causing a tsunami shit if we wanted. Who knows what consequences an action will have.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@CognosSquare
When as my dilemma addressed, the hobo would be killed secretly, no stress would happen to society as a whole because society at large wouldn't know about it. The only person who knows would be the doctor.
I don't see the need to argue that consequences are totally irrelevant, just that utilitarianism doesn't account for morality perfectly.
I certainly don't argue that taking life is always wrong. (I advocate a moral hierarchy aka value pluralism)
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Ok thanks for clarifying. I dont think a hobo was that great of an example. They often have a lot of friends. Maybe pick socialite & hermit. Or just take the trollyproblem
There is no "In this situation no one got robbed/killed/etc so this is a perfect 100% score". There are infinite ways of handling a situation. All consequences good and bad from the actions must be weighed from this moment and to "forever". By accruing wisdom about consequenses can we gradually do "whats right"
CognosSquare 1 year ago
@CognosSquare
I agree. You can continually tweak the scenarios to make a new dilemma. Its not really advantages to nitpick the analogy, both the trolley and organ donor dilemmas are meant to show that ceteris paribus (one of the few times I get to use an econ term in philosophy, it means "all other things being held equal")"murdering an innocent man to save five people is both happiness maximizing and immoral.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 "murdering an innocent man to save five people is both happiness maximizing and immoral." This is tricky indeed.
Would you say that morals could be a set of rules that are "best practice generally" but perhaps allow some exceptions to the rule set?
I mean Is there no situation where a lie could be "not immoral". Or taking/giving of a life, stealing/appropriating without consent, etc. Or is this just all immoral but can still bring happiness or even be universially good?
CognosSquare 1 year ago
@CognosSquare
I would say that "maximizing happiness" is a rule/value that works well generally. In actuality, I would say that there are several competing values. I think there is a hierarchy of values. When two values conflict, we don't always know which one trumps the other. It just so happens that "maximizing happiness" is likely near the top of that hierarchy, so what is moral coincides with that value a majority of the time.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
I didn't pay attention during the whole thing but here's my opinion on killing someone versus letting them die. I think the reason why killing someone (pushing them in front of the train) is worse is because of the extra emotional damage it causes. We're wired to be more traumatized by a murder over an accidental death.
Rulymiscreant1 1 year ago
@Rulymiscreant1 Yeah exactly. It seems a bit odd to define something as being worse BECAUSE we define it as being worse. Heading in the circular reasoning direction. But in the case of morality, it actually does work.
If seeing a strangers penis is bad because we say it's bad, then it actually IS bad because we say it's bad due to the fact that people who think it's bad will be emotionally affected negatively. The action itself isn't anything inherently hurtful, there could be a culture
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen Go search up Bernard Williams and negative responsibility. There is a difference.
ThaGMan51 1 year ago
@Rulymiscreant1 in which it's a sign of respect to show your penis to a stranger in which case it'd be a very moral thing to do.
But yeah, good point bro
ubergossen 1 year ago
I'm notorious for complicating simple issues. The trolly problem: WHO are the people on the track? Lets say you have five murder/rapists and 1 murder/rapist.......Kill the five.
So it depends who the people are. And is it okay to firebomb the entire compound of the WBC if it makes everyone happy?
4jonah 1 year ago
boy, am i glad that's over... lol
gothatfunk 1 year ago
The organ donor analogy is an example of when maximizing wellbeing is immoral. The circumstances in the dilemma involve the doctor secretly killing the hobo.
The analogy doesn't require this to become a non-secret widespread practice. Its just a case study that shows maximizing wellbeing is equivalent to morality. The two are highly correlated, it is a great rule of thumb, but the two terms are not interchangeable.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 mm hm but I tried to explain why I think that scenario doesn't work.
If you read in the comments a lot of people have explained how a society which murdered people for their organs would be almost certainly less happy, making the organ harvesting immoral by the gross happiness definition.
Also there are unforeseen consequences that could make the particular case immoral, but if there were a scenario in which the end result was better, I would say that it was moral...
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen Even if the populace did not know that people were being murdered it would be immoral. The thing about morality is that it's not a one theory sort of thing. There are multiple theories of morality. All of them get some of it right. But, to say that only one theory, i.e. utilitarianism, is right is absurd.
ThaGMan51 1 year ago
@ubergossen
"If you read in the comments a lot of people have explained how a society which murdered people for their organs would be almost certainly less happy"
This example has very little to do with society. It deals with the actions of one individual, it doesn't seek to establish a societal norm. Also, the doctor takes the hobo's life secretly. They can't be unhappy about something they don't know occurred.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Then in this case my answer from the video holds.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Killing someone is just about always the wrong thing to do, but actions themselves can never be inherently immoral or moral. It isn't the action that matters but the result. For example, lying is immoral by most people's standards. But it's simple enough to prove that lying itself isn't inherently immoral, it's the motive that's generally bad and the results which are generally negative.
I'm sure you've heard the jew hiding in the attic scenario. Do you lie to the Nazis?
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen
I advocate a moral hierarchy. that is to say, I think it is intuitively obvious that several objective moral values conflict, but that it is not self-evident which objective values trump each other when they do conflict.
For example, letting your friends die is generally bad (by generally bad I mean that most intentions commonly paired with letting your friends die would be immoral) and lying is generally bad. When you have to lie to protect a friend it gets tricky. continued
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@ubergossen
That being said, I'd lie to protect Jews. In fact I don't even find that decision very difficult. Also something you may find interesting, we have a biblical example of this taking place and being praised (Rahab lied to protect innocent people). Also, Jesus seems to set up a moral hierarchy. Calling the two greatest commands to love God and love your neighbor as yourself. Seems to me like saving your neighbor is the more loving option of the two.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 True, so then would loving the 5 people and saving their lives not be the more moral option? What's the difference here?
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen
Whatever decision it would be made would be based on love (noble intentions either way). I just think the value of not using someone as a means to and end and murdering them trumps the value of saving the five individuals.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Yet you said it's okay to kill someone as a means to an end of saving your own life. I guess the difference is that you were referring to self defense where you'll be killed BY that person. So you're preventing one murder with another.
I don't disagree with you that killing the hobo inherently seems immoral, that's for sure. I'm just not right away willing to discount the idea that it might be the best thing to do under a very specific set of circumstances.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen
There seems to be a difference between killing an innocent person vs an attacker. There also seems to be a difference between defending yourself and being the aggressor.
I am open to the idea that killing the hobo could be the best thing to do under a specific set of circumstances as well. Applied ethics is a very difficult subject. A moral dilemma requires two objective values conflicting, so it proves objective morality, but its difficult to tell which objective value is higher.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 Yeah, I agree with all of that, so we're on the same page then. Still not sure if you answered the second question about being able to find anything in the bible which you deem immoral but which the bible doesn't point out as being immoral.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@Epydemic2020 I'm not really into arguing whether god exists or whether morals come from god or not since they're both things that's impossible to prove or disprove for certain. But I'm about as sure as I'm sure of anything that if a god exists, it's most certainly not the god described in the bible, that's something I'm more willing to have a discussion about since it's something I feel can be disproved or proved conclusively.
ubergossen 1 year ago
Ubergossen!,
hey, I'm the guy who posed the nationalism question a few months ago. I'm horrible at staying in touch, just ask my mom or my ex...Great answer, I totally concur. Sorry I didn't respond sooner (a bit rude – hierarchy of feedback goes 1. Positive, 2. Negative 3. Nothing; I.e. Battered wife syndrome : ) and I'm ashamed to have given you the third when it should have been the first.)
andymerkel 1 year ago
@andymerkel haha no problem dude, thanks for watching
ubergossen 1 year ago
"Regarding the train track scenario, I had to laugh, because many of my acquaintances hold CEO's in low regard; so in their eyes, the moral high ground would be 5 CEO's perishing/saving the hobo. But I know the point of the exercise. And I'm glad we have both intuitions: 1. the hesitation to push guy; and 2. the ability to logic/reason that it might be better to push 1/save 5. I don't have much to add other than I'm happy that it's not all one or all the other...., thoughts?
andymerkel 1 year ago
I just thought this bit might be worth thinking about since you brought up the similar trolley dilemma.
In the trolley analogy, the lever is the means to and end. (the principle of unintended harm comes in, you tried to save someone with an unintended yet foreseen harm to other innocent people)
If you shove a man, they are the means to an end. They are not merely an unintended but foreseen consequence.
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
"right-on" regarding seeing how immoral acts complicate things. Even the big debaters don't really talk about this much...I.e. When a God/Chr apologetic asks “without a sacred text or higher power, how do we know right from wrong?” I haven't really heard any of the big atheist/free-thinkers say “can't you see how much it complicates things?” emo baggage/ psych damage is probably just scratching the surface. a thought worth considering / hypothesis worth disproving.
andymerkel 1 year ago
Thanks for the response.
The moral argument is consistent with Christianity, but it doesn't singlehandedly prove Christianity. You gotta prove that a God exists before you can prove which God exists. (The moral argument does narrow down the list of possible deities. Its gotta be a non-contingent deity who behaves morally. polytheism and the like are not proved or disproved by the moral argument).
Epydemic2020 1 year ago
How would a society look like if people had to live in fear of being killed for organ harvesting? It would have a terrible impact on the total happiness, wouldn't it?
TemperaMagenta 1 year ago
@TemperaMagenta yeah exactly, that's what i was getting at at the end. But yeah, overall it'd be a bad situation.
ubergossen 1 year ago
Sounds more like an unwilling hero problem then a trolley problem. Its like a hand grenade in an enclosed space with several people. If you dive on top of the grenade and save everyone's life, you're a hero, if everyone pushes you on top of the grenade, they are all murderers. That's where human rights come into play, the goal of rights is to protect the few from the many.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana So I guess my answer to the organ issue is that the CEO's are morally unjustified in taking the hobos organs because they wouldn't want their organs harvested by presidents and billionaires (or a mob of hobos). If the hobo volunteers he is a hero. Regardless of the net gain in the isolated situation, society as a whole suffers when the many are allowed to sacrifice the few for their own gain. And stem cell research.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana Yeah true. What about the stem cell research? You can't really compare "killing" blastocysts to killing a grown person.
But yeah, I like that unwilling hero analogy.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen Oh, I was offering stem cell research (for growing organs) as a solution, not as an additional moral dilemma. If the world population starts decreasing then there *might* be a case against stem cell research, until then you can either start holding funerals every time you wipe a layer of dead skin cells off your credenza or spend your time on a more important societal problem.
JoesephKatana 1 year ago
@JoesephKatana haha okay. I thought you just threw it in at the end as a moral dilemma and I was thinking "what?! I agreed with everything up until that."
But yeah, stem cell research will likely lead to a good solution to the problem of organ failure.
ubergossen 1 year ago
Actively killing someone cannot be compared to selecting between saving the lives of people already in jeopardy, even if it results in the death of one of said people. The mathematical "balancing" of "societal good" really only comes in to the decision making process as a last resort in the latter case, because there is no other criteria to use. It shouldn't, and doesn't (in most people's minds), come into consideration in the former case.
tml4873 1 year ago
The biggest problem with the hobo/CEO situation for me would be that a society in which the lower rungs of the social ladder are killed off, effectively at random, to sustain the higher rungs would create a climate of fear. A climate of fear is not conducive to a stable or happy society at all.
BrianTheGoldfish 1 year ago
@BrianTheGoldfish So as long as people didn't find out it was happening, you would say that it's a moral good?
tml4873 1 year ago
@BrianTheGoldfish Yeah very true, someone else mentioned this as well. I kindof tried to get at that at the very end but I didn't really explain any of the overall effects it would have.
But yeah, I think there's no question as to whether having a society where we can kill people for their organs is overall bad. Although I still think it's more of a difficult moral question when you take one situation individually.
ubergossen 1 year ago
Causing harm to an innocent individual for the sake of benfiting many others isn't morally justifiable. Yes killing one innocent person to avoid a train killing 5000 might make sense, but it doesn't make it morally just.
A doctor swears an oath to "do no harm", why can't everyone else?
Yes, I know a surgeon causes harm, but that is what surgery is; causing harm to and for the greater benefit of the consenting individual.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames What's the difference between something being morally unjust and something "making sense".
Are you saying sometime the right thing to do isn't the moral thing to do?
I don't understand since to me right and moral are synonymous.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen No, not the right thing, the lesser of 2 evils. Even though one might pick the lesser of 2 evils, they've not done a morally just thing. Which I know the hypothetical trolley question doesn't ask "Which is the lesser of 2 evils", I'm not saying pushing the guy is the morally right thing.
I also changed the beneficiaries to 5000, as an exaggeration, because then one has to define when the benefits out-weigh the costs, when does a few deaths turn into a tragic death toll.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames hm... interesting but I would still disagree.
I understand what you're saying, sometimes you're forced to choose between something morally wrong and something even more morally wrong and you have to do the right thing by being immoral.
But I'd still say that in those scenarios the less immoral option is the moral thing to do in that case.
In any case, we're disagreeing more on language than on what's actually the right/moral way of acting.
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ubergossen There is the language problem and also the compulsion to make the situation black and white.
It's like killing in self-defense, killing is wrong, but given the circumstance it's less wrong. One would expect to be charged with murder as law demands, but would likely be dropped. It doesn't make that act of murder a moral act.
To me, a morally right or wrong thing isn't plastic and I don't like to call an immoral act, justified. Without invoking a slippery slope, it's problematic.
ShallowBeThyGames 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames
The problem with that definition of morality is that it could go the other way as well and make even less sense.
If we have scenarios where an immoral thing is the right thing to do, we could come up with scenarios where the moral thing is the wrong thing to do.
I understand your point and I still could agree with you... maybe. Have to think about it a bit. I'd still say that an action which is generally immoral but the best thing to do in that situation would be moral
ubergossen 1 year ago
@ShallowBeThyGames for those particular circumstances.
I dunno, maybe you can do something which is the "most moral" but still immoral. "most moral" being synonymous with "least immoral".
ubergossen 1 year ago
5 CEOs dying of organ failure? Reminds me of Conferencereport's last video on schadenfreude. ;)
AnneOnAMoose 1 year ago