A universal morality?

[Falvlun]

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.

Precisely.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

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.

I find it scary to encounter those who believe in objective morality.

If there is a Correct Moral Choice (which I myself, of course, am able to see as clearly as the sum of 2 + 2), then you must not ever disagree with me. If you do, you're either evil or insincere or morally defective. I mean, what sort of perversion drives others to deny that 2 + 2 = 4. Good honest people don't do that.

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.

You worry me, Falvlun. Sometimes I think that you are smarter than me, and that makes me lie awake at night staring at my ceiling, which seems so pale now.

You know the Correct Moral Choice would be for you to sprinkle a few ungrammaticalities through your messages so I can feel better about myself and get a little more shuteye.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

I shall be careful in the future when I try to adjust the level of the answer to the level of the question.

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.

Take a particular problem and show me there are more than one equally correct moral solution. It could be possible but I can't for the moment come up with examples.

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?

The Golden Rule is for people who don't have the intelligence to ask that question and my answer was meant for them. You appear to be obsessed with that particular post. You have noticed my later posts where I describe some other moral imperatives right? Since you have shown yourself intelligent enough to understand that it's more complicated than that we can discuss more complicated issues if you like or do you want to continue quoting that particular post forever?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Take a particular problem and show me there are more than one equally correct moral solution. It could be possible but I can't for the moment come up with examples.

And I doubt that you'll ever be able to come up with one. No time soon, anyway.

Can a fundamentalist conceive examples of the Bible contradicting itself?

No. Not so long as he's a fundamentalist.

 

[ArtieE]

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.

I missed this post earlier. Ambiguous Guy has later informed me that "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." I guess that renders the whole scenario moot.

 

[ArtieE]

And I doubt that you'll ever be able to come up with one. No time soon, anyway.

Can a fundamentalist conceive examples of the Bible contradicting itself?

No. Not so long as he's a fundamentalist.

It would have been more helpful if you had come up with an example.

 

[Falvlun]

I missed this post earlier. Ambiguous Guy has later informed me that "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." I guess that renders the whole scenario moot.

Would you please be kind enough just to address the scenario as I laid it out in that post?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I missed this post earlier. Ambiguous Guy has later informed me that "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." I guess that renders the whole scenario moot.

Have you never debated morality before now?

Falvlun has his/her scenario and I have mine.

I realize that you're feeling on shaky ground with both our scenarios, but it won't do to pretend that they contradict each other. His is his. Mine is mine. Address them.

With mine, I realize that it's disturbing to be faced with the idea that your own country could be the bad guy, but you can't become a better player if you refuse to play. Try to answer.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

It would have been more helpful if you had come up with an example.

My example is Steve McQueen.

I've demonstrated that the Correct Moral Choice would have been to allow the sailor to be tortured so that the Chinese could extract military secrets from him -- thus saving millions of Chinese from the US invasion of their homeland.

But you have (mistakenly) concluded that the Correct Moral Choice was for McQueen to kill the sailor in order to protect the military secrets so that the US could move forward with its invasion plans, destroying all those lives.

How do you explain your error? What caused you to believe that an Incorrect Moral Choice was actually a Correct Moral Choice?

 

[ArtieE]

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.

So both shooting the person and not shooting the same person is equally morally correct? Are you sure the justice system is ready for your morals?

 

[ArtieE]

Have you never debated morality before now?

Falvlun has his/her scenario and I have mine.

I realize that you're feeling on shaky ground with both our scenarios, but it won't do to pretend that they contradict each other. His is his. Mine is mine. Address them.

With mine, I realize that it's disturbing to be faced with the idea that your own country could be the bad guy, but you can't become a better player if you refuse to play. Try to answer.

Sorry but you lost all credibility when you brought in raping China and immortal souls and Klingons and countrymen being aggressive jerks. I can't take you seriously anymore. Find someone your own age to play with.

 

[Falvlun]

So both shooting the person and not shooting the same person is equally morally correct? Are you sure the justice system is ready for your morals?

Laws =/= morality.

Can you demonstrate that one option is superior, or more correct than the other?

Note: In contrast to your own views, I don't really believe it accurate to label a particular moral choice as "correct" or not. It has more to do with "permissible" or "impermissible". Meaning, yes, I believe that in that situation either action was ethically permissible.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

So both shooting the person and not shooting the same person is equally morally correct? Are you sure the justice system is ready for your morals?

Of course. Obviously. Justice and morality have little to do with one another, but the justice system is already ready for our morals. Instead of sending the accused into a room with an ayatollah who can see his guilt as clearly as the sum of 2+2, we send the accused into a room with 12 of his peers who struggle in good faith and finally vote on whether the accused's behavior matches the wording in a criminal statute.

Note that those jurors have no right to judge the morality of the accused. They only have the right to match his behavior to the wording of the statute.

Thank goodness your concept of justice does not prevail in the US. You would have no need for a jury, yes? They could just lead the accused in front of you, and you'd never make a mistake in your judgments.

A scary worldview.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Sorry but you lost all credibility when you brought in raping China and immortal souls and Klingons and countrymen being aggressive jerks. I can't take you seriously anymore. Find someone your own age to play with.

Forgive me. I forget that I need to to take out my teeth sometimes and only engage in a bit of rough gumming. It's just forgetfulness. I mean no harm.

By the way, you might want to do a bit of reading in American history along with the biology. Believe it or not, the US was often the aggressor and has committed many sins at home and abroad.

 

[ArtieE]

Laws =/= morality.

Can you demonstrate that one option is superior, or more correct than the other?

Note: In contrast to your own views, I don't really believe it accurate to label a particular moral choice as "correct" or not. It has more to do with "permissible" or "impermissible". Meaning, yes, I believe that in that situation either action was ethically permissible.

Sorry, but your scenario is so simplified and fails to take so many important things into consideration that it's practically meaningless. Have you even considered the moral implications of disobeying a direct order not to shoot on Chinese land setting a bad example for the rest of the crew and the political and other negative consequences that action could lead to? If introduced into your scenario would that tip the scales to not shooting or have no effect at all?

 

[Falvlun]

Take a particular problem and show me there are more than one equally correct moral solution. It could be possible but I can't for the moment come up with examples.

The Famous Train Ethics Thought Experiment:
There is an out-of-control train barreling down the tracks. On its current course, it will kill 5 people. You have the option of pulling a lever, and directing it to a different track, where it will kill only 1 person.

Do you:
1) Pull the lever, thereby actively choosing to kill the one person?
2) Leave the lever as it is, allowing the 5 to die?

Arguments can be made for the permissibility of both actions. In Option 1, less people die, but it can be argued that your actions killed a person. In Option 2, more people die, but you personally are not the cause of the deaths. Debate remains which option is the "better" choice, but the way I see it, both have pros and cons, and both are morally permissible. What do you think?

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, but your scenario is so simplified and fails to take so many important things into consideration that it's practically meaningless. Have you even considered the moral implications of disobeying a direct order not to shoot on Chinese land setting a bad example for the rest of the crew and the political and other negative consequences that action could lead to? If introduced into your scenario would that tip the scales to not shooting or have no effect at all?

In my scenario, I never even said that they were Chinese doing the torturing, or that there was anyone else on the boat to give a direct order. So, reading fail on your part. Please stick with just my scenario. I explicitly said there were only two people affected: Steve McQueen and the Tortured Guy.

(I suppose you can argue there are also the torturers, but if I must give you more detail, lets just say that they are a band of people on some island who simply have a policy of torturing any outsider who lands there. Neither of Steve McQueen's actions affect them in either way, since they are already satisfied that they upheld their policy by torturing the Tortured Guy.)

 

[Falvlun]

Sorry, but your scenario is so simplified and fails to take so many important things into consideration that it's practically meaningless. Have you even considered the moral implications of disobeying a direct order not to shoot on Chinese land setting a bad example for the rest of the crew and the political and other negative consequences that action could lead to? If introduced into your scenario would that tip the scales to not shooting or have no effect at all?

Also, this response really had nothing to do with the post you responded to.

Care to address that laws and morality are not the same thing?
Care to address the difference between labeling moral decisions as "correct" vs "permissible"?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

The Famous Train Ethics Thought Experiment:
There is an out-of-control train barreling down the tracks. On its current course, it will kill 5 people. You have the option of pulling a lever, and directing it to a different track, where it will kill only 1 person.

Do you:
1) Pull the lever, thereby actively choosing to kill the one person?
2) Leave the lever as it is, allowing the 5 to die?

I'll need more information. These people on the tracks -- do they all hold US citizenship or are some of them Chinese?

Do any of them owe me money?

(Everything else being equal, I'd divert the train in a New York minute. I have no problem playing God.)

 

[ArtieE]

The Famous Train Ethics Thought Experiment:
There is an out-of-control train barreling down the tracks. On its current course, it will kill 3 people. You have the option of pulling a lever, and directing it to a different track, where it will kill only 1 person.

Do you:
1) Pull the lever, thereby actively choosing to kill the one person?
2) Leave the lever as it is, allowing the 5 to die?

Arguments can be made for the permissibility of both actions. In Option 1, less people die, but it can be argued that your actions killed a person. In Option 2, more people die, but you personally are not the cause of the deaths. Debate remains which option is the "better" choice, but the way I see it, both have pros and cons, and both are morally permissible. What do you think?

Now this is an interesting moral dilemma but a lot of pertinent information is missing and there's a lot of other things one must consider besides the amount of people on the track.

1. Which track is longest and straightest so the train can be spotted early enough to get off the track?
2. Do both tracks go uphill or downhill or does one go uphill and the other downhill?
3. Which track has the sharpest turns so there's a possibility of derailing before it reaches anybody?
4. Does any of the tracks end up so that the train has a possibility of crashing into a building perhaps killing dozens?
5. Am I aware of any weaknesses in the structure of the line or foundation that couldn't cope with the train?

I'm sure there are other factors I haven't considered. I would combine the knowledge and choose the track I believe could result in the least loss of life pulling or not pulling the lever wouldn't matter. The moral choice would be reducing loss of life pulling or not pulling the lever wouldn't matter.