Total Posts:25|Showing Posts:1-25
Jump to topic:

Gambling with Lives

MyDinosaurHands
Posts: 203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.

NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.
Guess what I used to type this..

Careful! Don't laugh too hard.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,367
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:07:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.


NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.

If he has a coin on him, then he would be holding that.
I don't choose options i don't like.

Flaws:
- how do you know he can kill the innocent people?
- how are you going to kill the innocent person?

I'd attack the guy himself. And if I die trying, then he'd have killed one innocent person. And the other two can hang up against him, while I be the distraction.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.


NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.

Tell him no so he kills 2 innocents. The blood is not on my hands. But I certainly would try to detain or kill him because that is one life and not the 2 in jeopardy.
Hematite12
Posts: 400
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:05:09 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.


NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.

Probabilistically, 2 die regardless.

So why would I put blood on my hands?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:

A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 dead
B: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 dead
C: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.

If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.

So walking away in an alley is wrong. and I don't feel analogous. Because walking away from an alley doing nothing is I feel accomplice by willful neglect. One can:

A: walk away no action, result 1 dead
B: walk away call cops, result 1 dead thug gone
Bv2: walk away call cops, result 0 dead thug arrested
Bv3: walk away call cops, result 0 dead, thug escapes
C: intervene with out calling cops, result 2 dead (you + victim) thug gets away
D: Call cops then intervene, result 2 dead (you+victim) thug arrested
Dv2 Call cops then intervene, result 2 dead (you + victim) thug escapes
DV3: Call cops then intervene, result 0 dead thug escapes
Dv4: Call cops then intervene, results 0 dead, thug arrested.

Now not all things are equal. Like the attackers motivations and intent. Or the skill of someone who chooses to physically intervene. But the action for the best effect is to call the cops first, most self defense instructors say to verbally intervene if possible by shouting "fire" because people are more apt to call 911 for fire than they are for rape or help.

Any ways the majority of situations is greater life is spared when cops is called. But physically intervening has smaller impact and not as likely in the whole. Plus if you go into a knife fight you will get stabbed. Not if, but when. Knife fights are bad because people go into shock from a deep cut, not because they bleed out. shock makes it easier to get a death blow.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:47:59 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:

A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 dead
B: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 dead
C: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.

If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.

So walking away in an alley is wrong. and I don't feel analogous. Because walking away from an alley doing nothing is I feel accomplice by willful neglect. One can:

A: walk away no action, result 1 dead
B: walk away call cops, result 1 dead thug gone
Bv2: walk away call cops, result 0 dead thug arrested
Bv3: walk away call cops, result 0 dead, thug escapes
C: intervene with out calling cops, result 2 dead (you + victim) thug gets away
D: Call cops then intervene, result 2 dead (you+victim) thug arrested
Dv2 Call cops then intervene, result 2 dead (you + victim) thug escapes
DV3: Call cops then intervene, result 0 dead thug escapes
Dv4: Call cops then intervene, results 0 dead, thug arrested.

Now not all things are equal. Like the attackers motivations and intent. Or the skill of someone who chooses to physically intervene. But the action for the best effect is to call the cops first, most self defense instructors say to verbally intervene if possible by shouting "fire" because people are more apt to call 911 for fire than they are for rape or help.

Any ways the majority of situations is greater life is spared when cops is called. But physically intervening has smaller impact and not as likely in the whole. Plus if you go into a knife fight you will get stabbed. Not if, but when. Knife fights are bad because people go into shock from a deep cut, not because they bleed out. shock makes it easier to get a death blow.

I would say a general application would be to call cops then verbally and loudly intervene but stay far enough away to avoid physical confrontation.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:46:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:

A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 dead
B: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 dead
C: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.

If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.

I think you've overcomplicated the situation. There are three scenarios here:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
B: You kill the killer, one person dies who would be a murderer.
C: You die, and the killer murders the innocent, two innocent people die.
D: You do nothing, the killer kills one innocent person.

Let's now suppose that it is clearly apparent that you can overpower the killer. Say, you have a stun-gun. Moreover, the killer is somewhat sane: if he thinks he will certainly lose (because, say, it is clearly apparent you can overpower the killer) then he will run away. Now the choice becomes, taking these factors into account:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
D: You do nothing, and the killer kills an innocent person.

While B and C are still possible, it is only with such unlikelihood that for all practical reasoning we'd discard them as possible (just as we'd discard the possibility that the killer is in fact saving the person's life who he is choking).

This is essentially a simplified version of the 'Jim and the Indians' thought experiment. But it goes like this: how do you justify to the victim that you did not want to get involved, because you'd become an accomplice to the outcome? The fact that you can affect the outcome in any way makes you involved already. Indeed, if you call the cops, why are you in this situation not an accomplice? From the sounds of it, to put it frankly, you know it is immoral but you just don't want to be personally involved.
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:48:07 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:47:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would say a general application would be to call cops then verbally and loudly intervene but stay far enough away to avoid physical confrontation.

Let's take this then. Why may you get verbally involved, but not physically involved? That is, why are you allowed to affect the outcome in this way, but not in another way? More than that, why is it that affecting the outcome, if you are trying to help (and assuming intent matters), is somehow immoral?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,248
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 12:56:02 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

There's a difference between the two situations. In the OP, the expected utility is the same for both options, so you would be getting blood on your unnecessarily, while in your example, getting blood on your hands is necessary to prevent a murder.
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:03:20 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.


NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.

This is different from the trolley dilemma, because the one flipping the coin has the choice to not kill people. In the trolley dilemma, there are events set into motion devoid of human intervention, but in this specific scenario, it is a human carrying out the dirty deed regardless of the actions of the one under question.

So, in this case, the coin-flipper has their own choice to make, and if they choose to harm innocents, so be it.

It is also different in that each option has the the average deaths of 2 if the experiment is conducted in perpetuity. You're not really saving lives by sticking to one choice or another, so there is no utilitarian solution to this problem. Better to just keep your hands clean.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:09:15 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

Hmmm...I would first point out that there is no utilitarian dilemma here. We don't know the outcome of a certain set of actions.

What if by acting, the strangler kills both you and the individual? What if by not acting the strangler only kills the individual? With such a set of choices, the clear choice is to not act.

Or, what if by acting, the strangler is killed, while by not acting, the victim is killed? Most people would choose to act, as without given any more information, the strangler is, well, a strangler, and will probably strangle more people needlessly.

If you add in chance and probabilities, you can just game it out as you would any other dilemma to reach the appropriate solution.
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 1:21:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/14/2014 7:01:37 PM, MyDinosaurHands wrote:
Here is the scenario, someone has told you that if you kill an innocent person, he will flip a coin to determine whether or not to kill 2 innocents. If you do not act, he will not flip a coin, and simply kill the 2 innocents.

So,
OPTION A
Kill an innocent to ensure 50/50 probability for the other 2. There is a 50% chance that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 1 will die.

OPTION B
Spare the innocent, ensure the deaths of the 2. There is a 0% that all 3 will die. There is a 100% chance that 2 will die.


NOTE:
The coin flip will account for the fate of both of the other innocents.

Ensure the death of two, because all moral action will only be associated with the killer, whereas by killing the innocent you are allowing moral action to befall yourself through the death of the innocent.
Nolite Timere
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 3:19:18 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 1:09:15 PM, wrichcirw wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

Hmmm...I would first point out that there is no utilitarian dilemma here. We don't know the outcome of a certain set of actions.

What if by acting, the strangler kills both you and the individual? What if by not acting the strangler only kills the individual? With such a set of choices, the clear choice is to not act.

Or, what if by acting, the strangler is killed, while by not acting, the victim is killed? Most people would choose to act, as without given any more information, the strangler is, well, a strangler, and will probably strangle more people needlessly.

If you add in chance and probabilities, you can just game it out as you would any other dilemma to reach the appropriate solution.

In fairness, I was making a quick thought experiment, and the main question I was raising was my second one - the question of justification, rather than, say, deliberation. I've expanded on this point in another post though, to clarify this :)
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:20:05 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:48:07 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:47:59 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I would say a general application would be to call cops then verbally and loudly intervene but stay far enough away to avoid physical confrontation.

Let's take this then. Why may you get verbally involved, but not physically involved? That is, why are you allowed to affect the outcome in this way, but not in another way? More than that, why is it that affecting the outcome, if you are trying to help (and assuming intent matters), is somehow immoral?

Refer to the list of possible out comes. The person being strangled is the life at risk. Calling the cops always had at the most a beneficial affect on saving life and at the least little to no effect.

Physically intervention put both the victims life and your life at risk and in most cases had less effect then calling cops.

Verbally Intervening after calling the cops means you get at the least the benefits of both calling cops and intervening with little additional risk to life.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 4:26:10 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 12:46:07 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:

A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 dead
B: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 dead
C: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.

If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.

I think you've overcomplicated the situation. There are three scenarios here:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
B: You kill the killer, one person dies who would be a murderer.
C: You die, and the killer murders the innocent, two innocent people die.
D: You do nothing, the killer kills one innocent person.

Let's now suppose that it is clearly apparent that you can overpower the killer. Say, you have a stun-gun. Moreover, the killer is somewhat sane: if he thinks he will certainly lose (because, say, it is clearly apparent you can overpower the killer) then he will run away. Now the choice becomes, taking these factors into account:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
D: You do nothing, and the killer kills an innocent person.

While B and C are still possible, it is only with such unlikelihood that for all practical reasoning we'd discard them as possible (just as we'd discard the possibility that the killer is in fact saving the person's life who he is choking).

This is essentially a simplified version of the 'Jim and the Indians' thought experiment. But it goes like this: how do you justify to the victim that you did not want to get involved, because you'd become an accomplice to the outcome? The fact that you can affect the outcome in any way makes you involved already. Indeed, if you call the cops, why are you in this situation not an accomplice? From the sounds of it, to put it frankly, you know it is immoral but you just don't want to be personally involved.

I don't think so. You are adding in variables like being able to over power him. If all things are equal then you should measure the scenarios on the risk to life. Because you can only measure one life against another life.

I am quite skill and adept at intimidating and/or assaulting a person. I would be much more confident than some one else to intervene physically. But this is a variable that due to training is an exception not the rule.

As I said, I would consider all the actions and weight the outcomes against the costs and added risks.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/17/2014 5:37:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 4:26:10 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 12:46:07 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:43:46 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
At 5/17/2014 4:26:11 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/16/2014 11:37:55 PM, Mhykiel wrote:

Suppose a situation where someone else is, say, strangling to death an individual in an alleyway. If someone walks away, would you say they did the wrong thing? If they used the excuse "the blood was not on my hands", how would you respond?

As I said I would do what I could to stop the one intent on hurting someone. But your asking me to choose:

A: I kill innocent, Killer has chance to Kill 1 result 2 dead
B: I Kill innocent, Killer has chance to kill 2 result 3 dead
C: Killer kills 2, result 2 dead.

If I can stop him in any way and of course call the cops I will. But given those choices Why would I take on participating in a needless murder. Doing so save no more lives than what would be lost anyways, And now I am an accomplice.

I think you've overcomplicated the situation. There are three scenarios here:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
B: You kill the killer, one person dies who would be a murderer.
C: You die, and the killer murders the innocent, two innocent people die.
D: You do nothing, the killer kills one innocent person.

Let's now suppose that it is clearly apparent that you can overpower the killer. Say, you have a stun-gun. Moreover, the killer is somewhat sane: if he thinks he will certainly lose (because, say, it is clearly apparent you can overpower the killer) then he will run away. Now the choice becomes, taking these factors into account:

A: You stop the killer, no-one dies
D: You do nothing, and the killer kills an innocent person.

While B and C are still possible, it is only with such unlikelihood that for all practical reasoning we'd discard them as possible (just as we'd discard the possibility that the killer is in fact saving the person's life who he is choking).

This is essentially a simplified version of the 'Jim and the Indians' thought experiment. But it goes like this: how do you justify to the victim that you did not want to get involved, because you'd become an accomplice to the outcome? The fact that you can affect the outcome in any way makes you involved already. Indeed, if you call the cops, why are you in this situation not an accomplice? From the sounds of it, to put it frankly, you know it is immoral but you just don't want to be personally involved.

I don't think so. You are adding in variables like being able to over power him. If all things are equal then you should measure the scenarios on the risk to life. Because you can only measure one life against another life.

I am quite skill and adept at intimidating and/or assaulting a person. I would be much more confident than some one else to intervene physically. But this is a variable that due to training is an exception not the rule.

As I said, I would consider all the actions and weight the outcomes against the costs and added risks.

I found that Jim and the Indian thought experiment. I think it is different here.

For one there is almost an almost guarantee to save 19 other Indians. Jim is not a prisoner and has no tactical reason to resist. If Jim has a moral reason to harm no life then he should refrain. But if he doesn't have such a strong pacifist bent then he should shoot one Indian. Again this is because there is no added risk to jim to shoot or not shoot. So his option is either get one life killed or 20. So I would take the 1.
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 1:22:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
It's one thing to balance the lives you safe or don;t safe against the actions you take causing risk to more lives.

I think the tough question is if you have the ability and means to kill 3 people who are set on killing you. How do you respond?

To label them as murderers would be making yourself judge and jury. To kill 3 you would be saying your life is more valuable then 3 lives.

Is there any logical explanation for fighting back and killing 3 people?
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 4:56:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/17/2014 5:37:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
For one there is almost an almost guarantee to save 19 other Indians. Jim is not a prisoner and has no tactical reason to resist. If Jim has a moral reason to harm no life then he should refrain. But if he doesn't have such a strong pacifist bent then he should shoot one Indian. Again this is because there is no added risk to jim to shoot or not shoot. So his option is either get one life killed or 20. So I would take the 1.

Okay, let's focus on this thought experiment then as you've understood the purpose of this thought experiment.

One variation of it involves Jim telling Pedro "I do not want to get involved in this situation: if I do nothing, then I am not morally responsible", to which Pedro disagrees. Suppose Jim did not act, for this reason. Is his reason enough to absolve him of moral guilt? Why/why not? And when can this rule be used?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 11:31:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 4:56:50 AM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/17/2014 5:37:31 PM, Mhykiel wrote:
For one there is almost an almost guarantee to save 19 other Indians. Jim is not a prisoner and has no tactical reason to resist. If Jim has a moral reason to harm no life then he should refrain. But if he doesn't have such a strong pacifist bent then he should shoot one Indian. Again this is because there is no added risk to jim to shoot or not shoot. So his option is either get one life killed or 20. So I would take the 1.

Okay, let's focus on this thought experiment then as you've understood the purpose of this thought experiment.

One variation of it involves Jim telling Pedro "I do not want to get involved in this situation: if I do nothing, then I am not morally responsible", to which Pedro disagrees. Suppose Jim did not act, for this reason. Is his reason enough to absolve him of moral guilt? Why/why not? And when can this rule be used?

I got my story details from http://www.unc.edu... But you maybe have another.

I think inaction is action. I know that sounds counter. But in stress filled situations its been said that you can't always do the right thing, but the worst thing you can do is nothing.

Doing nothing is legally accountable when it come to gross negligence. Standing by does mean you have not made a decision. Knowledge of the situation, invoked a point to decide on an action, any time that decision appears you are responsible for the results.

But hear me out. What portion for the results and how you are responsible is at question here.

For the first example I said why would I put blood on my hands? Was not the same as me pleading not doing it not responsible. I was saying to kill the innocent runs the risk of having even more killed. So the action increases risk to life, and the action has no beneficial result in lowering the risk to life.

In the second situation the same thing. The actions of calling the cops and immediately intervening verbally, lead to a small risk to 1 life (you) and had the greatest chance of reducing risk to life (victim) (killer).

So now if I was Jim. I would walk up, say thanks to Pedro, ask if he had any favorites, if not I would shoot the old or sickest one. This way, I save the most life, garner a diplomatic relationship with the de facto power in the area, ect..

Now this is not saying Jim does not have the option of declining. Even if Jim is a pacifist, his inaction lead to the death of 9 (19 in my source) more people. If someone is a pacifist as in the "do no harm" kind, then this should put Jim's beliefs in question. Because doing no harm just caused more harm. I would rather feel guilty for shooting one person then to know my inaction lead to 20.

And inaction is not the same as inability. Sometimes a person can not help. and whose involvement would lead to greater risks.
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 3:47:45 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 11:31:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I think inaction is action. I know that sounds counter

Simply put, the general consensus among ethicists is that inaction is action, and it is intuitively true. Personally, I couldn't imagine 'inaction' (or not intervening) not being action, in many circumstances.

to kill the innocent runs the risk of having even more killed. So the action increases risk to life, and the action has no beneficial result in lowering the risk to life.

So would you say you are a consequentialist ethically?
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Stephen_Hawkins
Posts: 5,316
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/18/2014 4:00:30 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
Just to clarify, I meant that it is interesting to note that you're probably in the comfortable majority when you say inaction is action, or inaction still makes you morally accountable. I don't think it is that surprising or controversial - indeed, I can't think of any modern ethicist who holds that position today!
Give a man a fish, he'll eat for a day. Teach him how to be Gay, he'll positively influence the GDP.

Social Contract Theory debate: http://www.debate.org...
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
5/19/2014 1:53:38 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 5/18/2014 3:47:45 PM, Stephen_Hawkins wrote:
At 5/18/2014 11:31:22 AM, Mhykiel wrote:
I think inaction is action. I know that sounds counter

Simply put, the general consensus among ethicists is that inaction is action, and it is intuitively true. Personally, I couldn't imagine 'inaction' (or not intervening) not being action, in many circumstances.

to kill the innocent runs the risk of having even more killed. So the action increases risk to life, and the action has no beneficial result in lowering the risk to life.

So would you say you are a consequentialist ethically?

Yes I would say that is fair to a point. As I said the reasoning breaks down when it comes to defending your life against 3 other lives.

And generally I find certain acts wrong despite what good they may bring. So only in the scope that 1 life is worth 1 life. That freedom is less important than a life. And that a life that wants to kill another life should be eliminated first.