posted
Having shown myself to be a positive paragon of virtue in another live thread, I though I'd start one on moral dilemmas. Obviously, we make decisions on a practically constant basis. Shall I work or procrastinate? What shall I have for lunch? Shall I phone or text or email? Should I really be chewing on the flaky bit of lipskin that's really irritating me but will rip off to reveal tender raw flesh? Shall I reply to this thread? But some decisions evidently carry more weight than others.
Although I'm interested in people making lifechanging decisions (hell, there's a marriage thread going!) this thread's going to go more along the lines of theoretical choices: moral dilemmas. We've all heard them and probably mulled them over at some point. If not, now's your chance! I'll kick off with a couple of popular situations, and you can answer and add more as you see fit. Or stick on some ethical dilemmas you've always struggled over. Maybe the combined morality of TMO can help YOU!
So, You are walking along a towpath and suddenly you see two figures struggling frantically. Coming closer, you see that one is someone you love (child, parent, partner) and the other is someone who will grow to do/create something that will save the lives of thousands of people (insert great person of choice. Also, don't ask 'how would I know that?' It's all theoretical. You just do). You can only save one. Who?
See also: If you could travel back in time, would you kill Hitler at birth? Assuming that this would totally prevent a war of the scale of WWII, would it be ethical to take one life (innocent baby) for the sake of the many others that would be spent?
I'm torn on the thorns of the issues. I think in all likelihood, I would save the loved one from certain death. I know that for the greater good, I should sacrifice them for the wellbeing of others, but I think I'm too selfish. I suppose it's the gap between what I know I should do and what I actually would. I'd be more inclined to smother the infant Hitler in the knowledge that it would prevent massive loss of life (again, assuming an alternative dictator wouldn't rise in his place). Killing an innocent newborn would certainly be unethical but I think I'd be able to justify it with hindsight. The only way I can explain my rather conflicting views is down to personal connections and relationships. And, yes, selfishness. That said, I'd quite possibly dive back into the river in a vain attempt to save the other drowning person, but my absolute priority would be saving the life of a person I loved.
I think I'm coming across rather muddled. Perhaps YOU can answer the dilemmas more efficiently and coherently. Post more dilemmas! Post answers! Post ethical quandries! Post anything!
-------------------- the more brilliant her smile, the closer she always seemed to disaster Posts: 1057
| IP: Logged
posted
I think that most people would instinctively save the loved-one. As a former lifeguard, we were trained to make assessments of situations where several people are in peril; the rule of thumb would be to prioritise on the basis of several factors; what immediate danger is each person in; what risk does each rescue pose to the rescuer etc. You get the picture.
In reality, I'm pretty convinced I would prioritise the people I care about over strangers, irrespective of the above.
What if the loved one was a dog? Would it be OK to rescue Fido (the clue's in the name) over some random human?? Is human life always worth more?
As far as the Hitler question goes; to me that goes beyond hypothetical and into the realms of the metaphysical. However, without knowing what the alternative long-term consquences could be, it could actually be a huge disservice to humanity to annhilate the infant Adolph. Don't fuck with the timeline.
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
posted
In the case of the drowning future saviour of humanity - does the hypothetical rescuer *know* of the guilded future of this individual. I assume so... not that it would make any difference at all to my choice of who to save, but you didn't make that bit explicit.
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by philomel: and the other is someone who will grow to do/create something that will save the lives of thousands of people (insert great person of choice. Also, don't ask 'how would I know that?' It's all theoretical. You just do). You can only save one. Who?
posted
To clarify: you know one person is someone you love, and the other is a stranger who will do something that will help a lot of people (eg: discover cure for cancer).
-------------------- the more brilliant her smile, the closer she always seemed to disaster Posts: 1057
| IP: Logged
posted
That doesn't really clarify it though does it?
Does the rescuer *know* (albeit in our hypothetical ask-not-how-they-know universe) that this random stranger will go on to discover cure for cancer/warp-drive/limitless energy from water?
-------------------- i wrote for luck - they sent me you Posts: 3505
| IP: Logged
posted
Why are they fighting on a towpath? Has the future cancer-curer just tried to mug my mum or what?
-------------------- What I object to is the colour of some of these wheelie bins and where they are left, in some areas outside all week in the front garden. Posts: 4941
| IP: Logged
posted
Anyone who's read Stephen Fry's Making History will know that killing Hitler isn't the answer. It'd only make matters worse.
The cancer curist is a more interesting and less trodden path for this thread. I think most people would agree that the right thing to do would be to save the curist. But the decision would obviously be a massive struggle, as you'd have to lose a loved one. So it boils down to this: how loved is your loved one? And what's to say that this loved one doesn't die of cancer the following year? That'd really piss you off.
Posts: 14015
| IP: Logged
Astromariner
Going the right way for a smacked bottom
posted
I would save the loved one and then learn how to cure cancer myself. C'est simple!
Posts: 2814
| IP: Logged
posted
Is there an option to let them both die, and maybe throw in a few others too? There just seems to be a bloody plague of humans around at the moment, and far too much emphasis on protecting them instead of trying to stamp them out like they used to in the olden days. We used to have proper, big death wars and massive pandemics and no speed cameras, and the world was so much quieter and generally more pleasant.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by dang65: Is there an option to let them both die, and maybe throw in a few others too? There just seems to be a bloody plague of humans around at the moment, and far too much emphasis on protecting them instead of trying to stamp them out like they used to in the olden days. We used to have proper, big death wars and massive pandemics and no speed cameras, and the world was so much quieter and generally more pleasant.
When was this? The '70s?
-------------------- Some people stand in the darkness, afraid to step into the light... Posts: 3770
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Boy Racer: When was this? The '70s?
[sucks on pipe] Aye, young fella, 70s/80s/90s - every day was Massacre Day. Even young citizens could join in y'know, smoking on the tube, killing each other at football matches, passing on vile diseases to their schoolmates. [jabs pipe in Boy Racer's chest] Now, run along and don't forget *clunk*, *click*, complete waste of time.
Posts: 8467
| IP: Logged
posted
Also, if you just know that the stranger is going to do something significant and important in the future, does this mean that you are Mystic Meg?
If so, I would choose one or maybe even all of the following;
Rush straight to the nearest hair salon and get rid of my 60s pudding bowl hair cut
Accidentally on purpose drop the purple cape which I am bound to be wearing close to the water's edge (I'm assuming that the people are struggling because they've fallen into the water and that you don't mean that they're doing a particularly difficult crossword or are wearing overly tight clothing or something) where one of them can make a grab for it and use it as some sort of rope or leverage to haul themselves back on to dry land, whilst I save the other person.
Kill myself upon realising that I have become Mystic Meg and leave them to fight it out, stupid bastards.
[ 24.08.2004, 11:04: Message edited by: Sidney ]
-------------------- They give you a pen as fat as a modest cock and you're expected to dab it on the page, as though you were mopping the dregs of an afternoon Tommy. Posts: 1847
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by MiscellaneousFiles: Or you could threaten to kill the curist unless they tell you their secret! Hint: 'Guinness is good for you'
I like this idea best. Drag the "saviour of the human race" out the water and sit on the bank of the canal exhausted, panting, elated and ask the guy "Wow, so I gather you're going to save humanity? What's all that about?" and get them to tell you what the deal is. Then it's back in the water with them, and a lifetime of adulation and nobbing hot chicks for me. I can see it now, giving tearful press conferences "I - I just had to do what I could because I - I know how hard it is to lose a loved one after my wife drowned in the canal". Then burst into floods of crocodile tears. Backstage it's all young assistants going "It must have been so hard for you... if only there was something I could do to help?" Heh. Yep that's definitely the way to go. Also technically the idea about the person you saved being someone who also saved billions of lives would technically be correct. It'd just be their genius, and me taking credit for it, which is my favourite way of doing things.
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Embarrassed]](redface.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic