Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

An Interesting Moral Dilemma

ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:15:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Consider this...

Two separate people through an accident get merged together into a single new person. This person is independent and individual as they are made up of the fusion of the two previous persons.

You want the original two people back yet in doing so you would in essence, kill the new original person. What is the moral solution?

Do you keep the new hybrid, allowing them to live at the sacrifice of the two original people who befell this by accident?

Or do you split the person and in a sense commit murder to bring back the original two?
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:53:40 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:44:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, I'd say it is moral to keep the new hybrid and immoral to kill it to "restore" the two original individuals.

So, Tuvix FTW?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:54:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:53:40 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:44:36 PM, drafterman wrote:
BTW, I'd say it is moral to keep the new hybrid and immoral to kill it to "restore" the two original individuals.

So, Tuvix FTW?

Anything that robs me of Neelix.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:03:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.

Well, then the most important question is, is one of the original 2 people annoying? And is the subsequent merger still Tim Russ? Because, then the answer seems easy: you get to keep the new person, and Tim Russ, and you get rid of Neelix!

Now, if it was Neelix and Wesley...and they merged into Neesley, who was twice as annoying and whiny, then there'd be a dilemma.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:05:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.

I'm a big Trek fan.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:05:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:03:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.

Well, then the most important question is, is one of the original 2 people annoying? And is the subsequent merger still Tim Russ? Because, then the answer seems easy: you get to keep the new person, and Tim Russ, and you get rid of Neelix!

Now, if it was Neelix and Wesley...and they merged into Neesley, who was twice as annoying and whiny, then there'd be a dilemma.

Oh gawd. Wesley, the most annoying Star Trek character ever created....
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:05:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:03:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.

Well, then the most important question is, is one of the original 2 people annoying? And is the subsequent merger still Tim Russ? Because, then the answer seems easy: you get to keep the new person, and Tim Russ, and you get rid of Neelix!

Now, if it was Neelix and Wesley...and they merged into Neesley, who was twice as annoying and whiny, then there'd be a dilemma.

Ok. That made this atheist's head explode.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 8:16:09 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:05:58 PM, drafterman wrote:
At 6/10/2013 8:03:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/10/2013 7:59:00 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
I admit I took this from Star Trek :P

but the issue still stands!

And Neelix is still annoying.

I'm surprised you picked up on the Star Trek reference so quickly drafter.

Well, then the most important question is, is one of the original 2 people annoying? And is the subsequent merger still Tim Russ? Because, then the answer seems easy: you get to keep the new person, and Tim Russ, and you get rid of Neelix!

Now, if it was Neelix and Wesley...and they merged into Neesley, who was twice as annoying and whiny, then there'd be a dilemma.

Ok. That made this atheist's head explode.

Wouldn't that be horrid?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:51:34 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 10:15:38 PM, Bullish wrote:
I hold that morality is subjective. Therefore this question is meaningless.

You are essentially correct. Morality is just based on our collectively subjective goals, desires, and wants.
AlbinoBunny
Posts: 3,781
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 10:58:51 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:15:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Consider this...

Two separate people through an accident get merged together into a single new person. This person is independent and individual as they are made up of the fusion of the two previous persons.

You want the original two people back yet in doing so you would in essence, kill the new original person. What is the moral solution?

Do you keep the new hybrid, allowing them to live at the sacrifice of the two original people who befell this by accident?

Or do you split the person and in a sense commit murder to bring back the original two?

Ask the fusion;

"Do you want to stay as one, or be split back into two?"

If it says split, I'll split it. If it says not split I will then tell them;

"I'm going to kill you anyway and bring the other two back. Turns out though, I'm a crazy guy. I want one of the two people who were created into you to say their name. The first one to say their name, gets any three requests they want, within reason, fulfilled. The other gets a bag of potatoes, go! If neither says a name after an hour, I let the fusion live. If the fusion says one of their names, I keep to my word."

Bravo, AlbinoBunny, well played.
bladerunner060 | bsh1 , 2014! Presidency campaign!

http://www.debate.org...
http://www.debate.org... - Running for president.
http://www.debate.org... - Running as his vice president.

May the best man win!
R0b1Billion
Posts: 3,733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/10/2013 11:56:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 8:03:14 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:

Now, if it was Neelix and Wesley...and they merged into Neesley, who was twice as annoying and whiny, then there'd be a dilemma.

In that case you try and separate them before there is a safe way to do it -_-

Yeah, for a trekky, the Tuvix reference is going to be instantly recognized.

The answer to your question is that this is not a moral dilemma. For starters, there's no reason to believe there will ever be the possibility of a Tuvix or a similarly created created creature. If you're contemplating something that is impossible, then any answer you get is going to be utterly useless.

If we go out on a limb and insist it could happen, then I still don't believe it is a moral question. The reason is that morality has to do with emotional struggles of pride and indulgence. Captain Janeway's decision to either kill Tuvix or Neelix and Tuvok was simply a catch-22, in which either decision is based only on logic and not on any emotional vice. It's the same as any other catch-22 question, and I view the lot of these scenarios as philosophically useless. Bringing them up is a sign that one does not understand morality at all, because you are making the assumption that morality is an intellectual decision of some sort. It is not. Morality is intellect versus emotion (with emotion being the moral culprit), not intellect versus intellect.
Beliefs in a nutshell:
- The Ends never justify the Means.
- Objectivity is secondary to subjectivity.
- The War on Drugs is the worst policy in the U.S.
- Most people worship technology as a religion.
- Computers will never become sentient.
emospongebob527
Posts: 790
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:29:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 7:15:07 PM, ConservativePolitico wrote:
Consider this...

Two separate people through an accident get merged together into a single new person. This person is independent and individual as they are made up of the fusion of the two previous persons.

You want the original two people back yet in doing so you would in essence, kill the new original person. What is the moral solution?

Do you keep the new hybrid, allowing them to live at the sacrifice of the two original people who befell this by accident?

Or do you split the person and in a sense commit murder to bring back the original two?

Bold one.
"not to toot my own horn (it aint need no tooin if u know what im saying), but my writings on "viciousness: the one true viture (fancy spelling for virtue)" and my poem "A poem I wrote about DDO" put me in a class of my damn own. im just an UNRECONGIZED geniuse" -bananafana
RoyLatham
Posts: 4,488
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:36:23 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
As stated, I'd go with equating the mind with the person and restore the original two. Maybe I don't understand the "merged" premise, since I don't know the Star Trek referenced.

There are similar problems with separating conjoined twins. sometimes separating the twins puts both at risk. Sometimes it seems that one of the twins must be killed to save the other one. Decisions must be made without certainty.
Skepsikyma
Posts: 8,285
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:41:18 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Is it bad that the scientist in me is giddily going through all the fun ways that I could experiment on this hypothetical creature while I'm supposed to be contemplating the moral ramifications of the situation?
"The Collectivist experiment is thoroughly suited (in appearance at least) to the Capitalist society which it proposes to replace. It works with the existing machinery of Capitalism, talks and thinks in the existing terms of Capitalism, appeals to just those appetites which Capitalism has aroused, and ridicules as fantastic and unheard-of just those things in society the memory of which Capitalism has killed among men wherever the blight of it has spread."
- Hilaire Belloc -
bossyburrito
Posts: 14,075
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 8:55:06 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
The "fusion" is living only because it overtook the two individuals. It deserves no rights.
#UnbanTheMadman

"Some will sell their dreams for small desires
Or lose the race to rats
Get caught in ticking traps
And start to dream of somewhere
To relax their restless flight
Somewhere out of a memory of lighted streets on quiet nights..."

~ Rush
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 11:41:05 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/10/2013 10:15:38 PM, Bullish wrote:
I hold that morality is subjective. Therefore this question is meaningless.

Explain how the latter follows from the former.
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 11:46:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Ok, so, continuing on the Star Trek, bent, an argument can be made that you "die" every time you transport. Since this doesn't seem to bother anyone, I can see why they had no issue "restoring" the hybrid (using the transporter, even).

But, let's bring this closer to reality.

Take two children, siblings. (Whose parents are dead). Each sibling has half of their parents DNA. Let's suppose, by pure coincidence, that the siblings combined have the total DNA of both of their parents. That, whatever of the mother's DNA sibling A doesn't have, B does, and likewise for the father.

Could we justify "killing" the siblings in order to "recreate" the parents?

I certainly don't think so. In either situation the sources are "dead." By any generally accepted conception of identity, they have ceased to be. Any effort to "restore" the sources is merely creating new identities that are physical duplicates, and there is no justification for killing one or two people to do that. The "link" between the original source and the replications is irrelevant. The situation is morally unchanged if you were creating two new people distinct from anyone you started out with.
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 11:52:09 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
@OP, shut up newb.
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
ConservativePolitico
Posts: 8,210
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 11:53:40 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
First of all I would like to point out that this is a thought experiment of sorts and reality has no bearing on the morality of the situation (to whoever said that). We use experiments like this all the time to think about moral issues.

@drafter

I agree with your last point, you made it well.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:09:42 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 11:46:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
Ok, so, continuing on the Star Trek, bent, an argument can be made that you "die" every time you transport. Since this doesn't seem to bother anyone,

Sir! I beg to differ. Dr. Leonard McCoy was not a fan of the transporter, and was bothered by the whole thing. Granted, he's alone among folks, but still...

I can see why they had no issue "restoring" the hybrid (using the transporter, even).

But, let's bring this closer to reality.

Take two children, siblings. (Whose parents are dead). Each sibling has half of their parents DNA. Let's suppose, by pure coincidence, that the siblings combined have the total DNA of both of their parents. That, whatever of the mother's DNA sibling A doesn't have, B does, and likewise for the father.

Could we justify "killing" the siblings in order to "recreate" the parents?

I certainly don't think so. In either situation the sources are "dead." By any generally accepted conception of identity, they have ceased to be. Any effort to "restore" the sources is merely creating new identities that are physical duplicates, and there is no justification for killing one or two people to do that. The "link" between the original source and the replications is irrelevant. The situation is morally unchanged if you were creating two new people distinct from anyone you started out with.

There's a breakdown in that analogy, though; the parents didn't die as a direct result of the creation of the children. And you've got a two for two situation, instead of a one for two.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
drafterman
Posts: 18,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/11/2013 12:13:11 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 6/11/2013 12:09:42 PM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 6/11/2013 11:46:25 AM, drafterman wrote:
Ok, so, continuing on the Star Trek, bent, an argument can be made that you "die" every time you transport. Since this doesn't seem to bother anyone,

Sir! I beg to differ. Dr. Leonard McCoy was not a fan of the transporter, and was bothered by the whole thing. Granted, he's alone among folks, but still...

Damnit, I originally wanted to put a blip about McCoy (and Pulaski, if we want to dabble in necromancy) and forgot about it.

*shakes fists in air*
BLAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAADE!


I can see why they had no issue "restoring" the hybrid (using the transporter, even).

But, let's bring this closer to reality.

Take two children, siblings. (Whose parents are dead). Each sibling has half of their parents DNA. Let's suppose, by pure coincidence, that the siblings combined have the total DNA of both of their parents. That, whatever of the mother's DNA sibling A doesn't have, B does, and likewise for the father.

Could we justify "killing" the siblings in order to "recreate" the parents?

I certainly don't think so. In either situation the sources are "dead." By any generally accepted conception of identity, they have ceased to be. Any effort to "restore" the sources is merely creating new identities that are physical duplicates, and there is no justification for killing one or two people to do that. The "link" between the original source and the replications is irrelevant. The situation is morally unchanged if you were creating two new people distinct from anyone you started out with.

There's a breakdown in that analogy, though; the parents didn't die as a direct result of the creation of the children. And you've got a two for two situation, instead of a one for two.

Ok, Let's say they're fraternal twins and the mother died while giving birth and the father died as a result of grief from that?