Questions of Morality

[Drooper]

There is a thread in the political forum questioning the legitimacy of torture in certain circumstances. This led me to think about morals in general.

Most people would generally agree that it immoral to take someone elses life.

However, imagine you have been potholing in a cave with 3 other people when a massive flood occurs. On trying to escape through the only exit, the largest member of your party gets stuck trapping the rest of you. You could free the blockage, but not without killing you trapped companion. You will all certainly drown (including the trapped friend) if you do nothing.

Do you take th life of one to save 3?

What if your trapped companion has his had on the outside and would not drown? Do you kill one to save 3, or let you companion live?

Would your answer be any different if, instead of being trapped with 2 other companions, you were leading a troop of 20 ten year old scouts?

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'd kill him. Even if it was just me. Unless that person was a good friend, family or spouse.

If a good friend or family, I'd kill him to save the other 2 or 3. Unless I didn't like them much.

If it was a spouse I don't know if I could. I wouldn't if she would live even if all us drowned but if she would drown anyways I'd consider it.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Drooper

Do you take the life of one to save 3?




Yes, unless the one, is on their way to deliver a vaccine that will save thousands..




The right thing to do do, is the ' most ' good.

However, moral/immoral doe not equal right/wrong...

Something is immoral, if it violates your morals. That might include eating a ham sandwich..