This is topic For the greater good... in forum The Library at TMO Talk.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
http://www.themoononline.com/cgi-bin/Forum/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=2;t=001193

---

Posted by philomel (Member # 586) on :
 
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!
 

---

Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by StevieX (Member # 91) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Modge (Member # 64) on :
 

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?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Vogon Poetess:
Why are they fighting on a towpath?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Astromariner:
I would save the loved one and then learn how to cure cancer myself. C'est simple!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Uber Trick:
...I'd probably kill myself and leave them to fight it out, stupid bastards.

---

You could always walk away and leave 'em to it. Seems a shame to deprive the world of your sparkle.
 

---

Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
 

 

---

Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
 
I know OOb! I mean, imagine mentioning your sparkle!
 

---

Posted by Uber Trick (Member # 456) on :
 
On a public message board and everything. Good thing I've got meetings solidly from now til 7.30pm or who knows what could happen.
 

---

Posted by dang65 (Member # 102) on :
 
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.
 

---

Posted by Boy Racer (Member # 498) on :
 

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.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boy Racer:
When was this? The '70s?

---

• 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.

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'

---