A universal morality?

[ArtieE]

Amazing. It's really extraordinary, the lengths some will go to avoid making hard moral choices.

it's really extraordinary, the lengths some will go to avoid providing enough information so that the correct hard moral choice can be made.

The guy on the pole wants to live as long as he can, despite the pain. McQueen wants to put him out of his misery. Now: Which is the correct moral choice... to kill him or not to kill him?

That depends on:

Did McQueen know the sailor well and his stance on euthanasia? What had the crew of the gunboat previously agreed on in such situations? Does this sailor possess vital information that might jeopardize a lot of people if he talked? Does he have family then they must decide. Does he have something that needs to be retrieved? Are there any other captives? Are there any other sailors on land that might be contacted and could attempt a rescue party? What if he shot one or more of the torturers instead? Could he order the boat to dock and attempt a rescue mission? And on and on and on..."

Simple question. I think that anyone who ducks such a question has not yet created an integrated moral worldview and is certainly not ready for moral debate.

Too simple questions from too simple people demanding too simple answers. You are incapable of understanding that there are other considerations to take into account than what McQueen and the guy on the pole wants?

So it is the correct moral choice to kill a man -- to take his life from him -- even though he treasures that life and clings desperately to it?

Depends on the circumstances.

(Could you possibly answer this question directly and clearly? It's at the very heart of our disagreement.)

Then answer all of my questions first so I can make an informed decision. If you refuse to give the necessary details I need to make an informed decision I might as well flip a coin.

It is moral to kill a man against his will, even though he is not threatening you?

My answer is a resounding "YES", by the way. See Of Mice and Men.

And my answer is a stern "NO". See the McQueen scenario.

I gave you everything you asked for in the Hitler scenario, yet you still got the answer wrong.

So I take it you are a supporter of Hitler and his eugenics? It takes a brave man to stand by his convictions in this day and age.

I gave you all the info you asked for in the abortion scenario, yet you refused to answer or to ask for more info.

No you didn't. You didn't even come up with the details of a single case so I could determine the moral thing to do in that case.

I think you are still trying to develop your moral thought system and are not quite ready for the difficult moral questions. That's how it seems to me.

Sorry but it seems to me that your views on morality are so simplistic it borders on irrational. If you make hard moral decisions without even considering all the factors that has to be considered to reach the correct moral decisions how do you reach yours? Flip a coin?

 

[ArtieE]

How can we possibly be expected to venture The Correct Moral Answer when we don't have all the info!

Precisely. Finally you got it! It's either making the correct moral decisions based on available information or flip a coin. I guess you prefer flipping a coin.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Precisely. Finally you got it! It's either making the correct moral decisions based on available information or flip a coin. I guess you prefer flipping a coin.

Now your logic has gone entirely off the rails.

My position is that we make moral decisions based on available information. If I'm Steve McQueen, I either shoot or I don't shoot and I hope that my decision might have been the 'right' one.

Your position is that we cannot make moral decisions unless we have every bit of data which exists in the universe. And you think that if we ever do have all that data, and can finally make a moral decision, that Artie's personal conclusion and decision is 'The Correct Moral Decision'... presumably for all people in all times.

It's extraordinary for someone who claims to be an atheist. It's why I continue to believe that you are most likely very young.

 

[ArtieE]

My position is that we make moral decisions based on available information. If I'm Steve McQueen, I either shoot or I don't shoot and I hope that my decision might have been the 'right' one.

So how can I make a decision whether McQueen was right to shoot or not without the same information that was available to McQueen? Information you refuse to supply? I sure as hell hope any decisions people around me make is based on something more rational than "I hope I'm right..."

Your position is that we cannot make moral decisions unless we have every bit of data which exists in the universe.

Nope. Only one bit of data might be enough if it was conclusive. Just depends on the situation.

And you think that if we ever do have all that data, and can finally make a moral decision, that Artie's personal conclusion and decision is 'The Correct Moral Decision'... presumably for all people in all times.

Well, if we have ten numbers and add them up correctly, what are the chances that the answer we arrive at might be the wrong answer at some point in the future?

It's extraordinary for someone who claims to be an atheist. It's why I continue to believe that you are most likely very young.

You are extremely fixated on age aren't you? How come?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

it's really extraordinary, the lengths some will go to avoid providing enough information so that the correct hard moral choice can be made.

I'm going to put everything else aside now, Artie, and call your bluff. Sorry, but I can't seem to get through to you any other way.

Please ask me any question you like about the McQueen Scenario. I will answer anything you ask. At the end of the Q&A, you will tell me The Correct Moral Answer regarding the McQueen Case.

OK?

Please proceed with your questions now.

Did McQueen know the sailor well and his stance on euthanasia?

McQueen played poker with the guy every night, but they never discussed euthanasia.

What had the crew of the gunboat previously agreed on in such situations?

It had never been discussed.

Does this sailor possess vital information that might jeopardize a lot of people if he talked?

What is 'vital info'? The sailor knows how many crewman sail the gunboats. He knows the armament, the engine condition and sizes. He doesn't know the admiral's plans, at least not in detail, but he knows that the US wants to dominate the Chinese.

Please ask more questions if this answer feels incomplete to you.

Does he have family then they must decide.

No one knows if he has family. He signed up in San Diego but seems to have been a farmer beforehand. He never talks about family, so no one knows.

Does he have something that needs to be retrieved?

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'needs to be retrieved.' He has $50 in his pocket, his dogtags, some nice boots that the other sailors would like to have if the tortured guy won't be needing them anymore.

Is there any specific item you're asking about? Just let me know and I'll tell you exactly what items he has.

Are there any other captives?

No. Just him.

Are there any other sailors on land that might be contacted and could attempt a rescue party?

Yes. But the gunboat would have to sail away to find them. They are in a city 50 miles away and probably drunk.

What if he shot one or more of the torturers instead?

He did that already. Shot about a hundred of them. But they're Chinamen. They just keep replacing the dead torturers.

Could he order the boat to dock and attempt a rescue mission?

No. They would be overun and killed.

So. Now that I've answered all of your questions about the McQueen Case, I am ready for you to instruct us as to The Correct Moral Answer.

Was McQueen moral or immoral to shoot the sailor?

So I take it you are a supporter of Hitler and his eugenics? It takes a brave man to stand by his convictions in this day and age.

There's nothing wrong with being young, Artie. I actually admire your spunk. I just feel like you need to relax a bit and accept that we may have as much to teach you as you assume you have to teach us.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So how can I make a decision whether McQueen was right to shoot or not without the same information that was available to McQueen? Information you refuse to supply?

I've provided it now and will continue to provide it until you are exhausted of asking for more details.

Well, if we have ten numbers and add them up correctly, what are the chances that the answer we arrive at might be the wrong answer at some point in the future?

Just so you know, it is this sort of anwer which makes me think of you as young.

For most of us, the older we get, the more we realize that we live in a cloudy and confusing place.

You are extremely fixated on age aren't you? How come?

I tailor my messages to the person with whom I'm talking. As I speak with you, I begin to visualize an 18-year-old, well-educated offspring of upper-class yuppies. Someone who is casting himself into the adult world without much experience of life but with a level of confidence which must come from his privileged physical conditions.

Just my take on things. I could certainly be wrong.

 

[Falvlun]

The One Perfect Solution is the one that benefits most people the most and hurts the least amount of people the least. All the faculties I mentioned have evolved to achieve this solution. That solution would be the moral solution. Unless you can give us examples of solutions that benefits nobody, hurts many but still are moral?See post 97.We were given no information on how many people were involved or any other information on which we could base an informed moral decision.See post 97. When people pose simplistic questions they should expect simplistic answers. However, if people ask proper questions containing enough information for me to answer in a non-simplistic way they will get a non-simplistic answer.

So, are you reneging on your claim that this was a "simple application of the Golden Rule" then?

Also, you are acting as if utilitarianism is the only ethical theory around. Newsflash: It isn't.

And we have given you information about this particular scenario, but for some strange reason, you want it to be more complicated.

Here it is again:
Only two people are involved:
1. Steve McQueen
2. Tortured guy

We know:
1. If Steve McQueen were being tortured, then he would want someone to shoot him.
2. Tortured guy wants to live as long as possible regardless of circumstances.
3. Steve McQueen does not know #2.

Option 1: Steve McQueen shoots tortured guy to put him out of his misery.
Option 2: Steve McQueen doesn't shoot tortured guy.

Question: Which option is the moral one for Steve McQueen to take?

According to Artie, only one option can be the correct one. According to Falvlun and Ambiguous Guy, it is possible for more than one option to be morally correct.

In my opinion, the above scenario nicely highlights how more than one option could be considered correct and moral. If Steve McQueen shoots tortured guy, he is acting compassionately and with the best of intentions, but he does kill a guy who doesn't want to be killed no matter what. If Steve McQueen doesn't shoot tortured guy, perhaps because he morally cannot stomach the thought of killing someone, then the guy gets what he wants and Steve McQueen doesn't compromise his morals. Hey Presto! Two morally permissible solutions to one problem.

 

[idav]

In my opinion, the above scenario nicely highlights how more than one option could be considered correct and moral. If Steve McQueen shoots tortured guy, he is acting compassionately and with the best of intentions, but he does kill a guy who doesn't want to be killed no matter what. If Steve McQueen doesn't shoot tortured guy, perhaps because he morally cannot stomach the thought of killing someone, then the guy gets what he wants and Steve McQueen doesn't compromise his morals. Hey Presto! Two morally permissible solutions to one problem.

Ideally, killing is never the "best" moral option. In a world where people respected each others rights those sort of scenarios shouldn't happen.

 

[Falvlun]

Ideally, killing is never the "best" moral option. In a world where people respected each others rights those sort of scenarios shouldn't happen.

According to Artie, not only is it the best moral option, it is the only correct moral solution to this scenario.

EDIT:
And to note, I wouldn't say that killing isn't sometimes a permissible or appropriate moral option. Take assisted suicide. Some people if faced with a terminal and painful disease may not have the desire to live any longer, but don't have the ability to end their own life. Why should we deny them their choice and that option?

 

[idav]

According to Artie, not only is it the best moral option, it is the only correct moral solution to this scenario.

Before I thought Artie was just advocating use of logic and noting that the golden rule is logical. Not necessarily that it's the only logical path. Common sense should be a huge part of every decision.

 

[ArtieE]

I'm going to put everything else aside now, Artie, and call your bluff. Sorry, but I can't seem to get through to you any other way.

No need for you to address every point. I would appreciate though if you mention any important considerations I have missed.

Please ask me any question you like about the McQueen Scenario. I will answer anything up ask. At the end of the Q&A, you will tell me The Correct Moral Answer regarding the McQueen Case.

OK?

Please proceed with your questions now.

McQueen played poker with the guy every night, but they never discussed euthanasia.

I find it hard to believe that this has never come up, but if McQueen doesn't know whether the guy would want to be shot or not the ending of suffering and stopping information reaching the Chinese must take precedence.

It had never been discussed.

I find it hard to believe that there would be no policy on what to do in such situations. But if we assume there is none then McQueen is free to choose.

What is 'vital info'? The sailor knows how many crewman sail the gunboats. He knows the armament, the engine condition and sizes. He doesn't know the admiral's plans, at least not in detail, but he knows that the US wants to dominate the Chinese.

Then it is probable that he might know things that might be helpful to the Chinese in killing Americans which is a point in favor of shooting.

No one knows if he has family. He signed up in San Diego but seems to have been a farmer beforehand. He never talks about family, so no one knows.

Then we can only assume he doesn't have a family which leaves McQueen with the choice.

Well, that depends on what you mean by 'needs to be retrieved.' He has $50 in his pocket, his dogtags, some nice boots that the other sailors would like to have if the tortured guy won't be needing them anymore.

If he didn't have any physical plans or anything on him of extreme importance to the Chinese no need to get close and risk the lives of other people trying to retrieve anything.

No. Just him.

OK.

Yes. But the gunboat would have to sail away to find them. They are in a city 50 miles away and probably drunk.

Not an option then.

He did that already. Shot about a hundred of them. But they're Chinamen. They just keep replacing the dead torturers.

OK.

No. They would be overun and killed.

OK.

So. Now that I've answered all of your questions about the McQueen Case, I am ready for you to instruct us as to The Correct Moral Answer.

Was McQueen moral or immoral to shoot the sailor?

I have noticed that you don't seem to have considered for a second that there are two people involved and that both have a moral decision to make.

So, what have we got. We have a crew on a gunboat who has never discussed what to do and don't have any instructions or standing orders what to do in case one or more of their crew are captured and tortured. I find that highly unlikely. But we must assume that every crew member is fully aware of the dangers and know what's expected of them if they were captured and tortured and would know and expect that they would be silenced before they could divulge any potentially helpful information to the Chinese. He has no known family and no physical items on him that might be particularly helpful to the Chinese and so needs to be retrieved. And there's no chance of any rescue effort. Since there are two people involved we should see the situation from both sides:

The moral thing for the tortured sailor to do is to try to kill himself before he could divulge any information to the Chinese that might put others in danger. If suicide is not possible and they could see each other he should make an effort to signal McQueen that he should shoot him immediately. As a professional soldier personal feelings are irrelevant as he perfectly well knew what might happen and was expected of him as crew on a gunboat. If I was the tortured sailor I would consider it highly immoral and a dereliction of duty not to shoot unless the sound of the shot drew unwelcome attention to the boat by enemies in a position to harm it or if bullets were in low supply...

The moral thing for McQueen if given no other options is to shoot to end the suffering and to prevent any important information reaching the Chinese. In fact, it would be immoral for him not to shoot and leave the poor tortured crewman in such a position that he might die knowing he might have taken other countrymen with him.

 

[Falvlun]

Before I thought Artie was just advocating use of logic and noting that the golden rule is logical. Not necessarily that it's the only logical path. Common sense should be a huge part of every decision.

Here it is:

No, given complete knowledge of the circumstances there is one correct answer. If I was the tortured sailor and there was no chance of rescue I would like to be put out of my misery. Simple application of the Golden Rule.

 

[idav]

EDIT:
And to note, I wouldn't say that killing isn't sometimes a permissible or appropriate moral option. Take assisted suicide. Some people if faced with a terminal and painful disease may not have the desire to live any longer, but don't have the ability to end their own life. Why should we deny them their choice and that option?

Assisted suicides definately a touchy one. Basically all parties involved should be considered. When family is taken into account, somebody will have a hard time with advocating pulling the plug.

 

[ArtieE]

Before I thought Artie was just advocating use of logic and noting that the golden rule is logical. Not necessarily that it's the only logical path. Common sense should be a huge part of every decision.

Here it is:[/QUOTE]

"Originally Posted by ArtieE
No, given complete knowledge of the circumstances there is one correct answer. If I was the tortured sailor and there was no chance of rescue I would like to be put out of my misery. Simple application of the Golden Rule."

Simplistic questions draw simplistic answers. I was trying to keep the answer as simplistic as the question and not involve other considerations so as to make the answer too complicated.

 

[idav]

Here it is:

Yeah the golden rule doesn't really need to be pushed that far. The golden rule is a step in using common sense but I wouldn't expect others to want the same things I want.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Then it is probable that he might know things that might be helpful to the Chinese in killing Americans which is a point in favor of shooting

What if some of the American sailors were accused of going onshore to rape the local women? What if the American Navy was trying to take down the legitimate Chinese government?

In that case, would it still be the Correct Moral Choice to kill the tortured American sailor in order to save American lives and ensure American success?

OK.I have noticed that you don't seem to have considered for a second that there are two people involved and that both have a moral decision to make.

There are hundreds of people involved and faced with a moral decision. McQueen's shipmates are clamoring like angry apes at the Chinese on shore, and each one of them has access to a rifle. They are faced with the same moral choice as is McQueen.

By the way, I was confused about McQueen already shooting a bunch of Chinese torturers. Actually, the ship captain has issued orders for no one to fire a weapon, lest it be used for political purposes against the Americans. This command has been issued directly by the President in DC. No American serviceman is to shoot a weapon on Chinese soil.

But we must assume that every crew member is fully aware of the dangers and know what's expected of them if they were captured and tortured and would know and expect that they would be silenced before they could divulge any potentially helpful information to the Chinese.

OK, but the Chinese are the good guys, while the Americans are evil foreign invaders bent upon raping the Chinese mainland.

Just trying to keep things straight here.

The moral thing for the tortured sailor to do is to try to kill himself before he could divulge any information to the Chinese that might put others in danger.

So a Klingon must do everything in his power to support Klingon rapacity?

If suicide is not possible and they could see each other he should make an effort to signal McQueen that he should shoot him immediately.

And send his immortal soul -- along with McQueen's -- straight to hell?

See your assumption? See how you assume that physicality is more important that spirituality... just as one example?

As a professional soldier personal feelings are irrelevant as he perfectly well knew what might happen and was expected of him as crew on a gunboat.

You should watch the movie. It's the 1930s. The US Navy wasn't much.

If I was the tortured sailor I would consider it highly immoral and a dereliction of duty not to shoot unless the ....

And that's a fine moral opinion. Really it is.

But I'd like to re-ask my question from my very first message to you.

What if I disagree with you? I say that the moral course would be for McQueen to hold fire so that the Chinese would have time to torture military secrets out of the sailor tied to the pole... thereby saving Chinese culture and lives from the foreign rapist on their shores.

So. Which one of us owns the Correct Moral Choice here?

And how will Falvlun and the others decide which of us has it?

The moral thing for McQueen if given no other options is to shoot to end the suffering and to prevent any important information reaching the Chinese.

So one should defend one's own group no matter what? That's how you see morality?

In fact, it would be immoral for him not to shoot and leave the poor tortured crewman in such a position that he might die knowing he might have taken other countrymen with him.

Other countrymen? What if one's countrymen are aggressive jerks?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Assisted suicides definately a touchy one. Basically all parties involved should be considered. When family is taken into account, somebody will have a hard time with advocating pulling the plug.

Yes. I would have pulled my mother's plug a couple of weeks before she passed except for the siblings.

So she lay dying and I slept in the hospital room with her each night as she called out in her delirium, "Help me. Somebody please help me."

I'll always feel some guilt for not being able to help her.

 

[ArtieE]

What if some of the American sailors were accused of going onshore to rape the local women? What if the American Navy was trying to take down the legitimate Chinese government?

I started to answer this post point by point but gave up when I realized it's just a disorganized mess of questions and statements concerning rape and the Chinese government, the whole crew, the legality of firing a weapon, Klingons, immortal souls, hell, spirituality, old war movies and Americans being aggressive jerks. Good luck trying to make others take you seriously after this post. Live long and prosper.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I started to answer this post point by point but gave up when I realized it's just a disorganized mess of questions and statements concerning rape and the Chinese government, the whole crew, the legality of firing a weapon, Klingons, immortal souls, hell, spirituality, old war movies and Americans being aggressive jerks. Good luck trying to make others take you seriously after this post. Live long and prosper.

OK. Come back when you are ready. I never hold a grudge.

 

[Falvlun]

Simplistic questions draw simplistic answers. I was trying to keep the answer as simplistic as the question and not involve other considerations so as to make the answer too complicated.

I think you're backpedaling. You didn't seem to think that it was a "simple question" when you first replied, but rather, a question with an easy and self-obvious answer.

But regardless, your specific solution to that moral dilemma isn't what I take issue with. Rather, it is your certainty that there can only possibly be one correct moral solution to any particular problem.

And the ridiculousness of that stance is what is being addressed in this whole conversation, and your initial response to the tortured guy scenario is indicitive of that. Your reply to that scenario was supposed to be your poster child for how easy it is to come up with an obviously correct solution to a particular moral problem, and yet it fell apart rather quickly with one question: What if the tortured guy didn't want to be shot?