Hypotheticals are only interesting if they are not absurd and ridiculous.
The Philosophy Forums at OnlinePhilosophyClub.com aim to be an oasis of intelligent in-depth civil debate and discussion. Topics discussed extend far beyond philosophy and philosophers. What makes us a philosophy forum is more about our approach to the discussions than what subject is being debated. Common topics include but are absolutely not limited to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, cosmology, religion, political theory, ethics, and so much more.
This is a humans-only philosophy club. We strictly prohibit bots and AIs from joining.
Count Lucanor wrote: ↑May 6th, 2021, 11:19 pm This is another version of the trolley problem. I have always said the trolley problem is a pseudo-problem, not very useful to elucidate matters of moral reasoning. How does one get to the circumstance of a major benefit to mankind being dependent on one particular act of yours? Who put you in that position? Why does it have to be with your bare hands and not with a painless lethal injection? What is at stake from a moral perspective, the death of the child or the method of execution? Too many what ifs...Yeah, it's not very practical, because there's almost never a situation like it proposes.
Darshan wrote: ↑May 9th, 2021, 10:38 pm Earthellism answers this difficult question. Indirectly this type of question was what happened in Nazi Germany in the last century. Hitler used this type of question to justify a genocide. The answer to that question is no because only a demonic creature (not God) would put someone in that position.God sacrificed his innocent only begotten Son to save the people from their sins (or so the story goes). I suppose Jesus agreed to his role, although He did ask if this cup could pass from Him (and then said, "But your will be done").
Hitler used a similar analog but instead of curing cancer, Hitler substituted save Germany or Europe or the human race.
Earthellism is a philosophy that prevents future genocides by explaining that when you murder an innocent child. you are a human devil and not a human being, To start a genocide one has to begin killing innocent women and children based on their race or religion or nationality. Since we are all God's children, God forbids all genocides which are really the the work of human beings who have become human devils here on earthell.
Only a human devil who craves to see innocent blood shed and innocent children die. would make such a request. When one does what a human devil wants you to do, you yourself become a human devil.
The real answer to the question is that one would sacrifice their life and not of the child to cure cancer if the human devil agreed.
Dave Winslow wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:58 pm Hard to say I could do it, but I went through the whole end justifies the means long ago, and I say it can. It would not therefore be a moral dilemma for me. It would be a matter of just how much horror I would put myself through in order to bring about what I believe to be the best outcome . I am not so brave, could easily shy from so horrible a task.That sounds very relatable. It's one thing to say you'd solve this particular "trolley problem" in theory, it's another to look at those big, pleading eyes and still ruthlessly cut the sprog down. I'd have the same problem killing a dog for the same reason, possibly even more so
While I think it is worthwhile to think in the form of principles, scientific or ethical, choosing what to do in a given situation is more a matter of practical judgement, for me. Would I torture a man who knew how to stop the bomb that is set to kill millions, yes of course.
Sy Borg wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 8:39 pmIf we are to always behave following moral precepts that can apply to all humans (per Kant), then killing and torturing have (among others) this problem: We might come to like it. Torquemada may have had rational justifications, but I imagine that he also got a perverse thrill from his tortures. He corrupted his soul with the act -- and many attracted to such acts are likewise destroyed. This destruction might be worse than death. Sadists are not born, but made. Torturing people is terrible for those being tortured and for the torturers. Same with baby-killing.Dave Winslow wrote: ↑May 11th, 2021, 5:58 pm Hard to say I could do it, but I went through the whole end justifies the means long ago, and I say it can. It would not therefore be a moral dilemma for me. It would be a matter of just how much horror I would put myself through in order to bring about what I believe to be the best outcome . I am not so brave, could easily shy from so horrible a task.That sounds very relatable. It's one thing to say you'd solve this particular "trolley problem" in theory, it's another to look at those big, pleading eyes and still ruthlessly cut the sprog down. I'd have the same problem killing a dog for the same reason, possibly even more so
While I think it is worthwhile to think in the form of principles, scientific or ethical, choosing what to do in a given situation is more a matter of practical judgement, for me. Would I torture a man who knew how to stop the bomb that is set to kill millions, yes of course.
Would you murder an innocent child with your bare hands to cure cancer?My answer is "no" mainly because I think I'd probably be incapable of doing it, for reasons given by Sy and Dave and possibly others. Too horrifying an experience. Likewise, when it came to it, I probably wouldn't be able to bring myself to torture information out of somebody to save millions from being killed by a bomb. If I managed to become somebody who could do that, I suspect it might well not stop there. Empathy, and the protective instinct towards children, isn't something that can be turned on and off as required by a cost-benefit calculation.
Steve3007 wrote: ↑May 12th, 2021, 10:51 amYou can press a button to remotely kill ...Everything is easier to do if you only have to press a button. The humble button is Archimedes' dream - the ultimate lever.
Sy Borg wrote:Everything is easier to do if you only have to press a button. The humble button is Archimedes' dream - the ultimate lever.Yes, because I think our main driver is empathy. That would be the reason why it would be difficult, when it came to it, for most of us to torture somebody to extract information about a bomb that is going to kill a load of other people, no matter how much we try to imagine the suffering of the people who will be killed or injured by the bomb. I think most of us would be incapable of not empathizing with the suffering of the human being who is actually in front of us. So anything that makes the infliction of pain and/or death more remote "helps".
But there is an obvious danger when consequences are so drastically decoupled from the action. To some extent, that's the key problem with tensions online. People are famously more polite and considerate in person. Each step away from personal interaction - phones, then private messages, then public messages, divorces us from the sensitivities (and sometimes, dangers) of physical presence.Yes, I think that decoupling is what allows most of the terrible things in the world to happen. That's why a fighter jet pilot can bomb a residential building. That and the psychology of the chain of command.
With great power comes great responsibility. If I had a Killer Button in the 70s and 80s, I might have done all kinds of things, albeit with later regrets. However, since I did not have a button that allowed me to incinerate those who bullied me at school and in the workplace, I can today pretend to be a moral person who would not dream of doing such a thing. Weakness can be a blessingYes! I've sometimes speculated how many fractions of a second the human race would survive if everybody on Earth had a button like that.
How is God Involved in Evolution?
by Joe P. Provenzano, Ron D. Morgan, and Dan R. Provenzano
August 2024
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023
To reduce confusion and make the discussion more r[…]
Feelings only happen in someone's body, n[…]