I have a variation of this question I would like you to consider EnlightenedSoul.

You are attacked in your home by five armed bandits. After robbing the family they decide to rape your daughter, in the process they discard a gun within your reach. Your only option is to kill the bandits if you must stop them from raping your daughter. What would you do?

LordReed:
I have a variation of this question I would like you to consider EnlightenedSoul.

You are attacked in your home by five armed bandits. After robbing the family they decide to rape your daughter, in the process they discard a gun within your reach. Your only option is to kill the bandits if you must stop them from raping your daughter. What would you do?

My answer is simple. The gunmen made the conscious decision to commit the crime. They forfeited their lives to all possible outcomes when they deliberately decided to trespass on our property, disrupt our home, and infringe on our rights. Who am I to concern myself with lives they did not concern themselves with, esp as the owners of that life essence? And why on earth extend to them that which they could not extend to their fellow human beings?

I'll not surrender to whims that may range in anything from petty robbery to murder. The truth is, I wouldn't wait for a weapon to be discarded. I wouldn't wait for threats of rape. As far as I'm concerned, they as good as signed their death warrants when they tinkered with my locks, and brought along with them their weapons of choice (fully intending to harm), effectively making my home a battlefield. That's not to say that I'll shoot to kill. I'll do what I need to do.

E-soul macaanto: how are you?

EnlightenedSoul:


My answer is simple. The gunmen made the conscious decision to commit the crime. They forfeited their lives to all possible outcomes when they deliberately decided to trespass on our property, disrupt our home, and infringe on our rights. Who am I to concern myself with lives they did not concern themselves with, esp as the owners of that life essence? And why on earth extend to them that which they could not extend to their fellow human beings?

I'll not surrender to whims that may range in anything from petty robbery to murder. The truth is, I wouldn't wait for a weapon to be discarded. I wouldn't wait for threats of rape. As far as I'm concerned, they as good as signed their death warrants when they tinkered with my locks, and brought along with them their weapons of choice (fully intending to harm), effectively making my home a battlefield. That's not to say that I'll shoot to kill. I'll do what I need to do.

I am trying to understand your reluctance in taking action. If in this case you have no hesitation why is this not extending to a case where you could easily save five people? Are you saying that constant self interest is the best course of action? That if it is not affecting you then it's not "your business"? Do you realise how different this world would be is this mindset was the one that prevailed during positive world changing events? Another question is must one be clairvoyant or perfect in other to take a hard decision?

LordReed:
I have a variation of this question I would like you to consider EnlightenedSoul.

You are attacked in your home by five armed bandits. After robbing the family they decide to rape your daughter, in the process they discard a gun within your reach. Your only option is to kill the bandits if you must stop them from raping your daughter. What would you do?

Your scenario is not similar to the OP's. Your house is under seige, your daughter about to be ravished, possibly you end up being killed before the robbers leave. Maternal/Paternal instinct, self preservation all comes to play. You kill all five without any qualms. You go to church for thanksgiving. . Only a coward would refrain from this course of action.

LordReed:


I am trying to understand your reluctance in taking action. If in this case you have no hesitation why is this not extending to a case where you could easily save five people? Are you saying that constant self interest is the best course of action? That if it is not affecting you then it's not "your business"? Do you realise how different this world would be is this mindset was the one that prevailed during positive world changing events? Another question is must one be clairvoyant or perfect in other to take a hard decision?

I'm not sure you understand my stance. These two scenarios are night and day.

* I'll be back to give you a more detailed response when I get some time, LordReed.

macaanto, saay baa taheey? I have been very busy these past few days. I have been waging an unrelenting Jihad on the pun.nani. May I be granted victory in this glorious struggle.

EnlightenedSoul:
Warning: Dark scenario.

Help me out with this, if you will.

"Suppose Bill is a healthy man without family or loved ones. Would it be ok to painlessly kill him if his organs would save five people, one of whom needs a heart, another a kidney, and so on? If not, why not?
Consider another case: you and six others are kidnapped, and the kidnapper somehow persuades you that if you shoot dead one of the other hostages, he will set the remaining five free, whereas if you do not, he will shoot all six. (Either way, he'll release you.)
If in this case you should kill one to save five(?) why not in the previous, organs case? If in this case too you have qualms, consider yet another: you're in the conductor's compartment of a runaway train and see five people tied to the track ahead. You have the option of sending the train onto the track forking off to the left, on which only one person is tied. Surely you should send the train left, killing one to save five (?)"

"But then why not kill Bill?"

Thoughts. Comments. Answers. Questions.

My dear if your soul is truly enlightened you will know that the taken of a human life is a taboo, no matter the circumstance. Unless that life is given willingly by the one who possess it (not cajoled into giving it).

joseph1832:
My dear if your soul is truly enlightened you will know that the taken of a human life is a taboo, no matter the circumstance. Unless that life is given willingly by the one who possess it (not cajoled into giving it).

Suicide?

EnlightenedSoul:


Suicide?

Sacrifice!.

joseph1832:
My dear if your soul is truly enlightened you will know that the taken of a human life is a taboo, no matter the circumstance. Unless that life is given willingly by the one who possess it (not cajoled into giving it).

You must be joking. By what law?

Akanniade:

You must be joking. By what law?

The law of nature!.

joseph1832:
The law of nature!.

You contradict yourself. Nature encourages self preservation, survival of the fittest. You eschew killing and embrace suicide . I guess you will "rather commit suicide than kill yourself" a la mama P.

Akanniade:

You contradict yourself. Nature encourages self preservation, survival of the fittest. You eschew killing and embrace suicide . I guess you will "rather commit suicide than kill yourself" a la mama P.

Dude! I suppose you live in the animal kingdom right?

joseph1832:
Sacrifice!.

Semantics.

EnlightenedSoul:

Semantics.

Antics?.

joseph1832:
Antics?.

You say 'sacrifice' (life).
I say suicide.

EnlightenedSoul:


You say 'sacrifice' (life).
I say suicide.

Two side of a coin.

EnlightenedSoul:


I'm not sure you understand my stance. These two scenarios are night and day.

* I'll be back to give you a more detailed response when I get some time, LordReed.

Emm still waiting for that detailed response.

LordReed:


I am trying to understand your reluctance in taking action. If in this case you have no hesitation why is this not extending to a case where you could easily save five people? Are you saying that constant self interest is the best course of action? That if it is not affecting you then it's not "your business"?

It's less about 'self-interest', and more about the principle of the matter. For instance, I'm curious as to why you're correlating the life of an unfortunate individual (on the adjacent track) to that of a group of offensive criminals who've let themselves into your home armed and dangerous?

Do you realise how different this world would be is this mindset was the one that prevailed during positive world changing events?

Clairvoyance?

Another question is must one be clairvoyant or perfect in other to take a hard decision?

If you've the misfortune to experience such scenarios, you can only be expected to make those calls to the best of your ability. I'm simply intrigued with, and interested in the reasoning behind those decisions.

Note: Sorry for the late reply. Not much energy ATM (nor as much detail as I'd intended), but there you go..

EnlightenedSoul:


It's less about 'self-interest', and more about the principle of the matter. For instance, I'm curious as to why you're correlating the life of an unfortunate individual (on the adjacent track) to that of a group of offensive criminals who've let themselves into your home armed and dangerous?

Yes principle is what I guess I am trying to clarify here. Is your principle "don't kill" or is it "kill only when it truly matters to you"?

Clairvoyance?

Clairvoyant is a noun, usually used when referring to someone who has clairvoyance.

If you've the misfortune to experience such scenarios, you can only be expected to make those calls to the best of your ability. I'm simply intrigued with, and interested in the reasoning behind those decisions.

Note: Sorry for the late reply. Not much energy ATM (nor as much detail as I'd intended), but there you go..

Your reply is much appreciated and I as well am intrigued in the reasoning.

I don't understand why it's hard to see that self-interests/biases will always prevail in determining what actions one takes in these seemingly complex scenarios. I agree to quite a large extent with LordReed on this. Hard as one may try, one's preconceived notions will play a great part in these situations. Hence, Enlightenedsoul's decision to take actions against the robbers. Though you may think that's where self-interests or pre-thinking stops, you'd be totally wrong.

Social experiments have shown time and time again that our actions follow from a whole bank of preconceptions we have acquired over time. Hence, the reason you are more likely to go with the crowd, for example. That baggage of experience will determine what you will do. As spontaneous or intelligent as you actions may seem, this baggage would have still informed it. In the end, different people will take different "right" actions

Interesting subject...

[b]You have to come to term with the fact that in the scenario of a train in motion with 5 individual tied on one track which happened to be the destination of the train and the alternative track being tied with just an individual, you have only few seconds to make your decision, deciding on placing your value on either quality or quantity is limited to time which in this case is scarce cos aint even got enough of it.
Personally i would divert the train from it's initial destination of impending 5 deaths to the only available track of 1 impending death - Less damage in terms of quantitative value.
Truth be said, you dont know this people, and so you cannot determine their worth in terms of qualitative value and how much they worth to the society, so one cannot outrightly make decission based on quality value, and so logically one can only make decission based on quantity and lesser damage, having in mind the limited time for decission.
And for those opting for inaction, believe me, you wouldn't wanna live with that, do you know the true consequence of your inaction? Do you have a clue that your inaction will cost the lives of all the people tied to those tracks
Now let me explain how, your inaction will definately allow the train heading the direction of the 5 individual kill them, and cos you walked away cos you dont wanna get involve or even witness the scenario, definately another train which might be heading the direction of the surving 1 will likewise kill him.
The question now is, can you really live for the rest of your life with the guilt that you had the opportunity to have saved someone and probably generations yet you walked away
Wouldn't that depict you as a wicked and heartless individual? You will forever remember those tears, those plea, those cry for help by victims which fell to your deaf ears. The guilt alone is capable of causing you discomfort for life.
You will definately feel responsible for their death. I dont think anyone would wanna live with that.

Cheers![/b]

joe4christ:
[b]You have to come to term with the fact that in the scenario of a train in motion with 5 individual tied on one track which happened to be the destination of the train and the alternative track being tied with just an individual, you have only few seconds to make your decision, deciding on placing your value on either quality or quantity is limited to time which in this case is scarce cos aint even got enough of it.
Personally i would divert the train from it's initial destination of impending 5 deaths to the only available track of 1 impending death - Less damage in terms of quantitative value.
Truth be said, you dont know this people, and so you cannot determine their worth in terms of qualitative value and how much they worth to the society, so one cannot outrightly make decission based on quality value, and so logically one can only make decission based on quantity and lesser damage, having in mind the limited time for decission.
And for those opting for inaction, believe me, you wouldn't wanna live with that, do you know the true consequence of your inaction? Do you have a clue that your inaction will cost the lives of all the people tied to those tracks
Now let me explain how, your inaction will definately allow the train heading the direction of the 5 individual kill them, and cos you walked away cos you dont wanna get involve or even witness the scenario, definately another train which might be heading the direction of the surving 1 will likewise kill him.
The question now is, can you really live for the rest of your life with the guilt that you had the opportunity to have saved someone and probably generations yet you walked away
Wouldn't that depict you as a wicked and heartless individual? You will forever remember those tears, those plea, those cry for help by victims which fell to your deaf ears. The guilt alone is capable of causing you discomfort for life.
You will definately feel responsible for their death. I dont think anyone would wanna live with that.

Cheers![/b]

I suppose what troubles me in particular is actively changing the trajectory of the train, and thereby effectively re-shaping the life and destiny of an individual far removed from the incident otherwise. No one has addressed that facet of the discussion thus far. In fact, the lone individual on the adjacent track is farrr more often than not met with complete disregard and/or unnecessary vilification. Which I find quite interesting.

Case in point, you didn't bother to mention, even in passing, the cries and grief of the family members of the individual you actively chose to involve in the accident. Nor did you speak to any guilt pertaining to having actively snuffed out his/her life. Despite the fact that it was a deliberate action on your part vs. 'letting' the train go along on its path which would've been, as you yourself have mentioned, an inaction.

Action > Inaction (?)

LordReed:


Yes principle is what I guess I am trying to clarify here. Is your principle "don't kill" or is it "kill only when it truly matters to you

Neither. A simple "don't kill" is unreasonable. Morbid as it is, there are situations where killing is justifiable. Self-defense is one thing, but SD and self-interest really have nothing to do with scenario at hand...I feel.

Clairvoyant is a noun, usually used when referring to someone who has clairvoyance.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know the meaning of clairvoyance. You asked if one is meant to be perfect and clairvoyant in making hard decisions, and in the same breathe posited that the world would be different today had such a mindset prevailed during positive world changing events (clairvoyance(?))

Anyway, I'm assuming by 'that' mindset, you meant the mindset of self-interest?

Your reply is much appreciated and I as well am intrigued in the reasoning.

It is intriguing

EnlightenedSoul:


Neither. A simple "don't kill" is unreasonable. Morbid as it is, there are situations where killing is justifiable. Self-defense is one thing, but SD and self-interest really have nothing to do with scenario at hand...I feel.

I introduced the armed men scenario to juxtapose a situation where you had vested interest in the outcome versus one where the effects are at a remove. Since we are exploring principles it would be enlightening (pun intended ) to see how thought processes are rationalized in diverse scenario.

Sorry, I wasn't clear. I know the meaning of clairvoyance. You asked if one is meant to be perfect and clairvoyant in making hard decisions, and in the same breathe posited that the world would be different today had such a mindset prevailed during positive world changing events (clairvoyance?)

Anyway, I'm assuming by 'that' mindset, you meant the mindset of self-interest?

The mindset I was referring to was where you wrote that being unable to determine what the outcome of either choice would be, would lead you to inaction and I am wondering if you feel one must be explicitly aware of the outcomes in other to make a choice. Do you feel that choice should not be made without clearly knowing the outcome?

It is intriguing

Very, especially when applied to self to audit one's actions, oh the humanity!

EnlightenedSoul:


I suppose what troubles me in particular is actively changing the trajectory of the train, and thereby effectively re-shaping the life and destiny of an individual far removed from the incident otherwise. No one has addressed that facet of the discussion thus far. In fact, the lone individual on the adjacent track is farrr more often than not met with complete disregard and/or unnecessary vilification. Which I find quite interesting.

Case in point, you didn't bother to mention, even in passing, the cries and grief of the family members of the individual you actively chose to involve in the accident. Nor did you speak to any guilt pertaining to having actively snuffed out his/her life. Despite the fact that it was a deliberate action on your part vs. 'letting' the train go along on its path which would've been, as you yourself have mentioned, an inaction.

Action > Inaction (?)

I actually pondered on this point and I would say it is tied to what I wrote concerning clairvoyance. Do you consider that the grief of five families is nonexistent or less than that of one family? Do you think that one individual is incapable of adding more value to society than five? It seems as though one requires clairvoyance in other to determine the best outcome but then do we actually make life changing decisions with or without it?

EnlightenedSoul:


I suppose what troubles me in particular is actively changing the trajectory of the train, and thereby effectively re-shaping the life and destiny of an individual far removed from the incident otherwise. No one has addressed that facet of the discussion thus far. In fact, the lone individual on the adjacent track is farrr more often than not met with complete disregard and/or unnecessary vilification. Which I find quite interesting.

Case in point, you didn't bother to mention, even in passing, the cries and grief of the family members of the individual you actively chose to involve in the accident. Nor did you speak to any guilt pertaining to having actively snuffed out his/her life. Despite the fact that it was a deliberate action on your part vs. 'letting' the train go along on its path which would've been, as you yourself have mentioned, an inaction.

Action > Inaction (?)

You seem not to be getting it, do you? There aint no inaction in this regard, which ever decission you make get you actively involved in the whole mess.
And you dont go telling me about guilt on taking the life of an individual, for christ's sake i'm under pressure to make a quick decission here, i cannot live with the guilt of inaction, that in itself is capable of killing me, and likewise i cannot allow 5 whole people to die which would result to more damage when i could avert the situation to a lesser damage of just one life lost instead of 5 individuals which equally means less family would be mourning.
In this situation i'm left with no choice than save 5 individuals over 1.
And dont say i'm responsible for the death of that single individual, i'm not, maybe blame it on fate, cos fate presented before me two choices;
1)Greater Damage
2)Lesser Damage
I would forever be regarded as an eeediota if i did nothing to avert the greater damage, it simply means the divine provision for my presence is completely useless...

LordReed:


I actually pondered on this point and I would say it is tied to what I wrote concerning clairvoyance. Do you consider that the grief of five families is nonexistent or less than that of one family? Do you think that one individual is incapable of adding more value to society than five? It seems as though one requires clairvoyance in other to determine the best outcome but then do we actually make life changing decisions with or without it?

Simply speaking, it's interesting and intriguing to me how joe4christ, yourself (please correct me if I misunderstand your stance), and plenty others out there are willing to put far more thought, regard, and energy into the consequences of the action as opposed the action itself, i.e, feeding into the concept of "The Greater Good" as a definition of morality. Clairvoyance holds no stake in the domain of one who considers the action. The same, however, cannot be said of one who chooses to perceive and weigh the possible consequences of said action as a main focal point.

joe4christ:


You seem not to be getting it, do you? There aint no inaction in this regard, which ever decission you make get you actively involved in the whole mess.
And you dont go telling me about guilt on taking the life of an individual, for christ's sake i'm under pressure to make a quick decission here, i cannot live with the guilt of inaction, that in itself is capable of killing me, and likewise i cannot allow 5 whole people to die which would result to more damage when i could avert the situation to a lesser damage of just one life lost instead of 5 individuals which equally means less family would be mourning.
In this situation i'm left with no choice than save 5 individuals over 1.
And dont say i'm responsible for the death of that single individual, i'm not, maybe blame it on fate, cos fate presented before me two choices;
1)Greater Damage
2)Lesser Damage
I would forever be regarded as an eeediota if i did nothing to avert the greater damage, it simply means the divine provision for my presence is completely useless...

it seems the initial quote here toady just disappeared...

*you're the one putting yourself under pressure and which could actually lead to errors.

*I can see you have not got a better yardstick to measure the worth of life, not when you're already measuring with quantity while ignoring quality.

*now you're already pushing blame to where I don't know, after you would have succeeded in terminating life. Meanwhile, whose fate are you talking of again? yours or that of the victim(s). Humans are simply the architects of their fate right from the genesis of existence.

*Lesser damage or greater damage. it's not left for you to decipher...not with your judgement so far.
Clairvoyants need to keep aloof as well from this. The gift is not meant for cases of these nature not even when illusions abound in what they see.

*The divine is far from what you can fathom, human spirits don't have any link to the divine. however your presence could be of 'help' if you can possibly get the train to halt.

NB: Always render informed help.

EnlightenedSoul:


Simply speaking, it's interesting and intriguing to me how joe4christ, yourself (please correct me if I misunderstand your stance), and plenty others out there are willing to put far more thought, regard, and energy into the consequences of the action as opposed the action itself, i.e, feeding into the concept of "The Greater Good" as a definition of morality. Clairvoyance holds no stake in the domain of one who considers the action. The same, however, cannot be said of one who chooses to perceive and weigh the possible consequences of said action as a main focal point.

Are you saying you act without considering the consequences? So in considering the man whose organs can save five people, will convincing him to give his organs be more acceptable as an action? Also how is your inaction in the train scene free of the "accusation" of considering consequence? Finally if consequence is not such a "big deal" why not let the armed men have their way and leave?

I was thinking, assuming the single individual was Socrates -- cornerstone of Western civilization and the remaining five were ordinary peasants; wouldn't greater good change from numbers to value.