Morality Hypothetical

[Diezel]

Haven't posted here in awhile, so I thought I would test the waters again...

I was watching M.A.S.H. the other day and came across a re-run that I almost forgot about. It was probably the best episode of the entire show. Hawk-Eye had a break down and nobody knew why. Finally, he recalls something he was involved with and it all hits him at once.

The reason for this thread is a spin-off of what he was involved with. I will relate it back to the episode after I ask the question:

Say you are in a hiding spot with a bunch of people and there is an enemy in the area looking for you. If the enemy finds you, there is no question that they will kill everyone.

No, say there is a woman with a baby. The baby begins to cry. As hard as everyone tries, the baby keeps crying. Even blocking its mouth, the baby is making a lot of noise.

The enemy is getting closer and will no doubt find the hiding place if the baby continues to cry. There is no other way to keep the baby quiet.

Is it morally justifiable to kill the baby? To answer this question, you must accept the dichotomy (even if it is false.) You either kill the baby, or your position is found and everyone is killed.

Is it morally justifiable to kill the baby and under what Ethical theory do you derive your answer? I will hold back on my answer for a bit.

As for Hawk-Eye, he was on a bus in the same circumstance and he told the mother to get the baby to shut up. The baby suddenly stopped crying and when he turned around, he saw the mother silently crying with a limp baby in her arms - she had snapped its neck. He couldn't handle the guilty feeling of responsibility for the mother's actions. It was well done, because the whole time he kept talking about a chicken, but at the very end, the show it was really a baby and you can understand his feelings.

Anyway, what do you all think?

[MRC_Hans]

Its one of these things that are hopeless to answer. Obviously, from a survival POV, its far better to sacrifice an infant in order for a number of adults to survive than for them all to die. It has surely happened, it happens in nature. Whether you would be able to live with it is the big question.

We are sacrificing human lives every day in order to ensure the well-being and comfort of others. Don't know what I'm talking about? Ever drive a car?

Then, if course, there's the abortion issue.

Hans

[roger]

Given the scenerio, the baby is guaranteed to die. Thus, I feel that it is acceptable to kill the baby to avoid disclosing your position. Furthermore, I think it would be highly immoral to not kill the baby in this case, as otherwise you are condemning others to a death that was entirely preventable.

I'm interested to see what other people respond because this seems like a no brainer to me compared to much more difficult and non-hypothetical scenerios, such as often come up in war (e.g. sending men on a nearly suicidal mission when you can't predict the outcome of the action with a high degree of certainty). Am I missing some nuance to this hypothetical?

Roger

[Diezel]

Originally posted by roger
Given the scenerio, the baby is guaranteed to die. Thus, I feel that it is acceptable to kill the baby to avoid disclosing your position. Furthermore, I think it would be highly immoral to not kill the baby in this case, as otherwise you are condemning others to a death that was entirely preventable.

I'm interested to see what other people respond because this seems like a no brainer to me compared to much more difficult and non-hypothetical scenerios, such as often come up in war (e.g. sending men on a nearly suicidal mission when you can't predict the outcome of the action with a high degree of certainty). Am I missing some nuance to this hypothetical?

Roger

You might be missing just one little nuance. I think it is a no-brainer too (but I am willing to bet there will be people that won't think that way,) which is why I asked if it was morally justified to kill the baby and which Ethical theory would it fit into. Self-preservation can lead to actions that aren't morally justified (unless your Ethical theory states that anything done in self-preservation is morally justified.)

I'm thinking more of the aftermath. Of course, nobody wants to make this decision. But if you did, you would have to deal with it. How do you deal with it? By convincing yourself you did the right thing. What is the right thing? That, you have to figure out on your own. You do that by your understanding and belief in certain ethical theories.

What I am wondering is what Ethical theory you are using when you are justifying the killing. You have seemed to pick the most obvious one - Utilitarianism, where the good of the many trumps the good of the few. This theory works quite well in this hypo.

Personally, I have another one that would fit well, but I want to hear from others first.

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

We are sacrificing human lives every day in order to ensure the well-being and comfort of others. Don't know what I'm talking about? Ever drive a car?

Ohh, very good observation, MRC_Hans.

We have many examples of people who risk their lives in order to save others. Soldiers, Firefighters, Policemen, workers exposed to dangerous substances, and so on. And we KNOW (consciously) that they could die.

We as a society sacrifice them in order to preserve our comfort, don't we?


Then, if course, there's the abortion issue.


How so?

Can you explain?

[MRC_Hans]

In abortion, we are basically also choosing one life for the wellfare of another. Wether its a human life might be discussed, but a life it is, and a potential human life it is.

Of course, some say that ALL life is sacred, which gives me a problem with the hamburger I just ate...

Hans

[Q-Source]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
In abortion, we are basically also choosing one life for the wellfare of another. Wether its a human life might be discussed, but a life it is, and a potential human life it is.


What human life are you talking about?

Do you think that the reason why a woman has an abortion is because the unwanted product is putting her life in risk?

Oh, come on. :rolleyes:

[roger]

Originally posted by Diezel
What I am wondering is what Ethical theory you are using when you are justifying the killing. You have seemed to pick the most obvious one - Utilitarianism, where the good of the many trumps the good of the few. This theory works quite well in this hypo.

Personally, I have another one that would fit well, but I want to hear from others first.

I wouldn't describe my response in those terms, as in this case there is no 'good of the few'. That baby is dead no matter what.

The only problem I see with my response is that by killing the baby I am depriving it of a few extra minutes of consciousness, in which case I guess I would say Utilitarianism would apply.

I am uncomfortable with Ethical theories in general. I believe, w/o proof, that there is no way to construct an ethical theory that is both self consistant and that won't sometimes lead to results that most would find unacceptable. Sort of like there is no way to create a 'fair' voting system when 3 or more candidates are contesting for 1 position (which has been mathematically proven).

I'm very interested in what your alternative justification is...

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by Q-Source


What human life are you talking about?

Do you think that the reason why a woman has an abortion is because the unwanted product is putting her life in risk?

Oh, come on. :rolleyes: I am talking about the life of the fetus, of course. Now, I was just giving another example where we sacrifice a life for a purpose. Not trying to start an abortion debate, so it was probably a badly chosen example, sorry. :(

Hans

[Skeptical Greg]

Something can be morally wrong, but the right thing to do..

As I have often suggested, IMO something is immoral, only if it violates your morals.

It doesn't mean it was right.

The mother did the ' right ' thing.

(P.S.

The " sanctity of human life " seems to have something to do with the bias of the holders of that opinion..
And in most cases, no life is more sacred to John Doe, than the one carrying the name:
' John Doe '; or at least ' Doe '...;) )

[Diezel]

Originally posted by roger
I am uncomfortable with Ethical theories in general. I believe, w/o proof, that there is no way to construct an ethical theory that is both self consistant and that won't sometimes lead to results that most would find unacceptable. Sort of like there is no way to create a 'fair' voting system when 3 or more candidates are contesting for 1 position (which has been mathematically proven).

I'm very interested in what your alternative justification is...

I agree with this and is the reason why you must study, understand and use many different theories. Some argue that you can't just pick and choice like that. Why not? Do you have only a single tool in your tool box, or do you have all kinds of tools, some that over-lap in usefullness, but none that can do everything?

This is why the question can be put into many different theories and the answer will still come out the same. Question is, what is the best tool for the job?

(answer, probably none, but that's no fun to talk about ;) And I'm not teasing you with my answer, it will be forthcoming.)

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Diezel,

Is it morally justifiable to kill the baby? To answer this question, you must accept the dichotomy (even if it is false.) You either kill the baby, or your position is found and everyone is killed.

I would say that if we accept this dichotomy, it is not even a moral question. The baby is going to die either way.

Unfortunately, the mother is probably not going to see it that way, so you will probably have to kill her too.

As to how I live with myself afterwards, I guess pretty much the way you live with anything else bad that happens to you. You just deal with it. People can deal with pretty much anything. Psychological problems like the ones you described for Hawk-Eye are what happens when you try to avoid dealing with it.

As for Hawk-Eye, he was on a bus in the same circumstance and he told the mother to get the baby to shut up. The baby suddenly stopped crying and when he turned around, he saw the mother silently crying with a limp baby in her arms - she had snapped its neck. He couldn't handle the guilty feeling of responsibility for the mother's actions. It was well done, because the whole time he kept talking about a chicken, but at the very end, the show it was really a baby and you can understand his feelings.

Hmmm... I remember that episode. I thought that she accidentally suffocated the baby by covering its mouth for too long.

Dr. Stupid

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat




Hmmm... I remember that episode. I thought that she accidentally suffocated the baby by covering its mouth for too long.

Dr. Stupid

We may have a winner...

[pgwenthold]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat

Hmmm... I remember that episode. I thought that she accidentally suffocated the baby by covering its mouth for too long.


Outside of the Superbowls, that episode was the most watched TV program in history. I think a lot of people will remember it.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Diezel,



I would say that if we accept this dichotomy, it is not even a moral question. The baby is going to die either way.

Unfortunately, the mother is probably not going to see it that way, so you will probably have to kill her too.

As to how I live with myself afterwards, I guess pretty much the way you live with anything else bad that happens to you. You just deal with it. People can deal with pretty much anything. Psychological problems like the ones you described for Hawk-Eye are what happens when you try to avoid dealing with it.

I guess that has been my question all along. We all agree that killing the baby is the right thing to do, but why is it the right thing to do? For that, I have only heard one answer - for the good of the other people. But why is killing the baby, for the good of the other people, the right thing to do. In any other circumstance, killing a baby is wrong. So what in this situation is peculiar to make it the right thing.

Even if a baby is going to die of an illness, is it moral to snap its neck, instead of let it die naturally? So if you answer no, then can you really justify killing the baby earlier, just because it was going to die later?

Hmmm... I remember that episode. I thought that she accidentally suffocated the baby by covering its mouth for too long.

Dr. Stupid

You might be right, but I really thought she snapped its neck. I'll have to keep an eye out for that episode again. Either way, she killed it for the good of the group.

[Diezel]

As for my justification for killing the baby...

I believe it is Kant's second theory that people are rational creatures and being such, we should treat them as such. We have no moral obligation to treat a non-rational creature in the same way. The baby is obviously not a rational creature, thus we do not have the moral obligation to treat it as such. Because the baby was not acting rationally, we had to be rational in the killing of it.

Sounds harsh, but these decisions are made all the time. What if it was a full grown man making the noise? Could we all agree that we would be justified in killing him? Why? Because he wasn't acting rational. These types of scenarios have played out in war quite a bit - one person loses it and is going to get everyone else killed, so they kill that person.

Now, it is obvious that Kant's theory has major flaws and I can show quite a few examples where we wouldn't accept the theory, but that is why I mention the toolbox - I believe this tool best fits the job at hand.

[The Don]

Or she killed it solely for the good of herself. If you're willing to stretch things far enough you could claim that people only ever do things in their own self interests.

Even Captain Oates 'I'm stepping outside, I may be a while' could be put down to him chosing to die quickly rather than slowly.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by The Don
Or she killed it solely for the good of herself. If you're willing to stretch things far enough you could claim that people only ever do things in their own self interests.

Even Captain Oates 'I'm stepping outside, I may be a while' could be put down to him chosing to die quickly rather than slowly.

Well, I believe people will do things for the good of society, outside their own self interests. But if the society benefits, then the person benefits (unless they are killed in their act), so it is almost impossible to seperate the two.

[The Don]

Originally posted by Diezel


Well, I believe people will do things for the good of society, outside their own self interests. But if the society benefits, then the person benefits (unless they are killed in their act), so it is almost impossible to seperate the two.

I would disagree, but I do have a very broad definition of self interest. Selfless acts I have seen (never actually done one myself you understand) have been motivated by one or more of the following:

- Desire to increase status in a group
- Desire to form/maintain a relationship with one or more group members
- Desire to enhance one's self worth
- Direct self interest

[whitefork]

Diezel, do you have a particular source in mind for your interpretation of Kant?

The usual formulations of the categorical imperative from here: http://www.utm.edu/research/iep/c/catimper.htm

The Formula of the Law of Nature: "Act as if the maxim of your action were to become through your will a universal law of nature."

The Formula of the End Itself: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

The Formula of Autonomy: "So act that your will can regard itself at the same time as making universal law through its maxims."

The Formula of the Kingdom of Ends: "So act as if you were through your maxims a law-making member of a kingdom of ends."

I don't see the justification for killing the infant on the grounds that it's not behaving rationally. I think some further argument is necessary to reach that conclusion in view of the point I've bolded here.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by The Don


I would disagree, but I do have a very broad definition of self interest. Selfless acts I have seen (never actually done one myself you understand) have been motivated by one or more of the following:

- Desire to increase status in a group
- Desire to form/maintain a relationship with one or more group members
- Desire to enhance one's self worth
- Direct self interest

I agree that all of these things do come into play, but I would disagree to the extent of the motivation. I've seen acts that have been very determintal to the person involved and the person doing the act knows it beforehand. But even in these situations, they are still enhancing their self-worth (clear conscience.) Were they only motivated to enhance their self-worth, or did they do the right thing to better society? I don't think that is a question that can be answered, because I don't think it can ever be seperated.

(btw, when I speak of "society", I am speaking of whatever social group that is involved in a decision. "society" can be anywhere from 2 people, to the entire human population, or in rare cases, a single person)

[The Don]

Originally posted by Diezel


I agree that all of these things do come into play, but I would disagree to the extent of the motivation. I've seen acts that have been very determintal to the person involved and the person doing the act knows it beforehand. But even in these situations, they are still enhancing their self-worth (clear conscience.) Were they only motivated to enhance their self-worth, or did they do the right thing to better society? I don't think that is a question that can be answered, because I don't think it can ever be seperated.

(btw, when I speak of "society", I am speaking of whatever social group that is involved in a decision. "society" can be anywhere from 2 people, to the entire human population, or in rare cases, a single person)

I agree with the definition of society - it's the one I shall henceforth use.

I can't comment on a person's motivation at the time (because I don't know the person) but I would claim that it will eventually come down to self interst in one way or another.

The most extreme case would be that a person gives up their life to save a complete stranger. I would claim that the person is only doing it either because they feel it gives their own life meaning (self interest) or because they want to be renowned post-mortem (self interest). Of course it they're dead they can't argue with my reasoning either - which makes things easier (unless John Edward really can do what he says).

[Diezel]

Originally posted by whitefork
The Formula of the End Itself: "Act in such a way that you always treat humanity, whether in your own person or in the person of any other, never simply as a means, but always at the same time as an end."

I don't see the justification for killing the infant on the grounds that it's not behaving rationally. I think some further argument is necessary to reach that conclusion in view of the point I've bolded here.

Your highlighted statement is my source. Kant further explained that because humans are rational creatures, they have moral worth. You only have duty (very important to Kant) to that which has moral worth. If something is rational (thus having moral worth), you have a duty to treat it as an end, not a means. If it is not rational, it has no moral worth, so you have no duty to treat it as an end, so you can treat it as a means.

And isn't killing the baby just a means for saving the rest of the group? According to Kant, if the baby was rational, you are not justified in killing it. But the baby is not rational, so you can use it as a means. In fact, it is your duty to treat it as a means to save the rational creatures in the group.

This is the way Kant is taught in almost every college Ethics course. I can provide links to these interpertations if you like.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by The Don


I agree with the definition of society - it's the one I shall henceforth use.

I can't comment on a person's motivation at the time (because I don't know the person) but I would claim that it will eventually come down to self interst in one way or another.

The most extreme case would be that a person gives up their life to save a complete stranger. I would claim that the person is only doing it either because they feel it gives their own life meaning (self interest) or because they want to be renowned post-mortem (self interest). Of course it they're dead they can't argue with my reasoning either - which makes things easier (unless John Edward really can do what he says).

I don't disagree, but I don't agree. :)

Like I said, I don't think it can ever be seperated.

[iain]

I'm not convinced that its right to kill the baby.

I can see a couple of arguments against :

1. Many would say that to kill an innocent human is always wrong. Who am I to decide who should live and who should die?

2. If it is moral to kill a baby in that situation, why it is that most people would feel guilty about doing it, rather than happy that they had saved lives. If you were in a group of 10 people and one person had to kill the baby, why would you not volunteer to kill the baby (i.e. be the most "moral" member of the group). I bet not many people would.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
I'm not convinced that its right to kill the baby.

I can see a couple of arguments against :

1. Many would say that to kill an innocent human is always wrong. Who am I to decide who should live and who should die?

Well, I could retort by asking you to define "innocent". Was the baby really "innocent"? But then I would have to seem harsh and state - "The baby was acting in a way that was determintal to the safety of the group, so it was not innocent". But then you would come back with "Since the baby was incapable of making that distinction, it is still innocent". I would then return with "It doesn't matter if it could make the distinction or not. Whether the person understands what they did or not does not determine guilt or innocence. Like the old saying goes, 'Ignorance of the law is no excuse.' The only real question is punishment."

"Innocent" is a relative term. If you drop "innocent", then you have the statemetn "Many would say that to kill a human is always wrong." Unless you are a Janist, I am sure I can come up with situations where you would saying killing a person is the right thing to do.

2. If it is moral to kill a baby in that situation, why it is that most people would feel guilty about doing it, rather than happy that they had saved lives. If you were in a group of 10 people and one person had to kill the baby, why would you not volunteer to kill the baby (i.e. be the most "moral" member of the group). I bet not many people would.

Guilt is not an indicator of ethics. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing. In fact, doing the right thing is often the hardest thing to do. A tough choice leads to guilt. If your son murder his wife and you found out about it, would you turn him in? The right thing to do would be to turn him in. But I know you would feel guilty about it. Is your guilt an indicator that you made the wrong choice?

But, believe me, there will be someone in that group that will volunteer.

[roger]

Originally posted by Diezel
I believe it is Kant's second theory that people are rational creatures and being such, we should treat them as such. We have no moral obligation to treat a non-rational creature in the same way. The baby is obviously not a rational creature, thus we do not have the moral obligation to treat it as such. Because the baby was not acting rationally, we had to be rational in the killing of it.

I don't accept this reason, Diezel, because it doesn't give us any way to decide whether to kill the baby or not.

For example, consider these variations:

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing everyone, taking your IDs, and then tracking down everyone's extended families and killing them too.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing the entire group, except the baby.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing one person, who has a history of being a serial killer.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing one person, for no reason at all.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing a dog which has acted heroically and saved several people's lives in the past.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on stealing your life's saving, which you have on your person.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on hurling general verbal abuse your way, making you feel bad.

In each case you have to weigh the merits of killing the baby, but that the baby is acting irrationally is NOT my selection criteria. It's weighing the costs of the alternative outcomes. In every case above, the baby is acting irrationally, but I think everyone would agree that at least one of the scenerios above does not justify killing it. So I conclude that irrationality does not suffice to make this decision.

A reasonable response would be that the criteria works in the case that Diezel mentioned, but I don't think so - making the decision based only on the rationality of the actors presumes the ethics of killing for the greater good. I don't see any way of making an ethical choice only based on rationality of the actors.

(edited to fix spelling)

[whitefork]

Good. Unless you bring in duty specifically, you can't reach the (Kantian) conclusion that killing is justified in this case. That's the missing piece. Duty - such a foreign concept these days....

I think the question is not so much "is it morally justified" but rather "is it morally necessary". Justified does not necessarily imply that the opposite is immoral

[Diezel]

Originally posted by roger


I don't accept this reason, Diezel, because it doesn't give us any way to decide whether to kill the baby or not.

For example, consider these variations:

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing everyone, taking your IDs, and then tracking down everyone's extended families and killing them too.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing the entire group, except the baby.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing one person, who has a history of being a serial killer.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing one person, for no reason at all.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on killing a dog which has acted heroically and saved several people's lives in the past.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on stealing your life's saving, which you have on your person.

* the person you are hiding from is planning on hurling general verbal abuse your way, making you feel bad.

In each case you have to weigh the merits of killing the baby, but that the baby is acting irrationally is NOT my selection criteria. It's weighing the costs of the alternative outcomes. In every case above, the baby is acting irrationally, but I think everyone would agree that at least one of the scenerios above does not justify killing it. So I conclude that irrationality does not suffice to make this decision.

A reasonable response would be that the criteria works in the case that Diezel mentioned, but I don't think so - making the decision based only on the rationality of the actors presumes the ethics of killing for the greater good. I don't see any way of making an ethical choice only based on rationality of the actors.

(edited to fix spelling)

But my question was "is it morally justifiable to kill the baby and why?" My reasoning was not the process in which I came to the decision to kill the baby, nor was it ever intended to be. My reasoning is to explain why killing the baby is justifiable. Look at it in that light and I think you can see where I am coming from.

I am looking at it this way - most people here came to the instant conclusion that the baby should be killed. My question is "How do you justifiy that?" And then I gave my answer. That answer works for that situation. It doesn't work in all situations, which I have stressed greatly.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by whitefork
Good. Unless you bring in duty specifically, you can't reach the (Kantian) conclusion that killing is justified in this case. That's the missing piece. Duty - such a foreign concept these days....

Yea, sorry about leaving that out. One of my biggest faults is that I always assume people can read my mind - I know what I was thinking and what my knowledge is on the subject, so I assume everyone else does too. I have to work on being more clear and putting in more background information when I post.

You should see me ride shotgun and give directions. :eek:

{oh sh*t, turn here, now, now! - why didn't you tell me earlier? - I assumed you knew! - how in the hell would I know when you are the one giving me directions!!!! (repeat at each turn)}

[Diezel]

Originally posted by whitefork
I think the question is not so much "is it morally justified" but rather "is it morally necessary". Justified does not necessarily imply that the opposite is immoral

You must have edited this after I quoted you earlier...

This is a great point and a whole new dynamic:

Is it immoral to not kill the baby?

I would have to say it is, following my reasoning above.

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel
Guilt is not an indicator of ethics. Doing the right thing is not always the easy thing. In fact, doing the right thing is often the hardest thing to do. A tough choice leads to guilt. If your son murder his wife and you found out about it, would you turn him in? The right thing to do would be to turn him in. But I know you would feel guilty about it. Is your guilt an indicator that you made the wrong choice?

But, believe me, there will be someone in that group that will volunteer. I think this approach is too simplistic.

Guilt is not the sole indicator of ethics, but if an "ethical" course of action would make most people guilty, it is an indication that the idea of "ethical" you have does not adequately explain real-world ethics.

Your example about the husband and son is a good example. It doesn't necessarily show that guilt is wrong; it points to a genuine ethical dilemma which any theory should account for. Are the parents partly to blame for the actions of the son? Why ruin two lives in the family instead of one? Can these matters be sorted out "in the family" instead of resorting to the law?

After all, when you say "is something ethical?", what do you mean? The baby/group example is very extreme and, as has been mentioned, life is hardly ever like this. Therefore, this example does not do a lot to help us understand ethical dilemmas.

It would be a lot more interesting to look at (for example)
- the baby dies OR the adults die
- the baby dies OR there is a 50% chance of the adults dying.

I always find it interesting that modern society puts a much higher value of the lives of babies than many older societies did (e.g. the Greeks practised infanticide). Maybe this is connected to our much lower infant mortality levels : we expect babies to live now, in a way which people would not have done even 100 years ago.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
I think this approach is too simplistic.

Guilt is not the sole indicator of ethics, but if an "ethical" course of action would make most people guilty, it is an indication that the idea of "ethical" you have does not adequately explain real-world ethics.

Your example about the husband and son is a good example. It doesn't necessarily show that guilt is wrong; it points to a genuine ethical dilemma which any theory should account for. Are the parents partly to blame for the actions of the son? Why ruin two lives in the family instead of one? Can these matters be sorted out "in the family" instead of resorting to the law?

After all, when you say "is something ethical?", what do you mean? The baby/group example is very extreme and, as has been mentioned, life is hardly ever like this. Therefore, this example does not do a lot to help us understand ethical dilemmas.

It would be a lot more interesting to look at (for example)
- the baby dies OR the adults die
- the baby dies OR there is a 50% chance of the adults dying.

I always find it interesting that modern society puts a much higher value of the lives of babies than many older societies did (e.g. the Greeks practised infanticide). Maybe this is connected to our much lower infant mortality levels : we expect babies to live now, in a way which people would not have done even 100 years ago.

I would say in the situation with the husband/son, the only ethical dilemma is for the immediate persons involved. Standing outside that situation, almost everyone could agree that the father turns the son in and nobody would feel guilty about making that decision.

The guilt comes into play when the father has an ethical conflict between his obligations to his family and his obligations to society. But even in this situation, I would assume (and I can't state this for certain) that most people know the right thing to do is turn the son in, but they are only deciding if they want to do that. The ethic is clear; the choice to follow their ethics is not.

I chose the hypothetical in extreme terms, because I believe working at the extremes makes things more clear. Yes, this would be a very rare case in the real world (but has and will happen), but I thought it would be a good case of showing how what we believe to be wrong all the time (killing a baby) is sometimes right and how do reconcile this fact.

And I would half agree that we put more importance on babies in today's society. Only half, because there are many cases that a baby is not considered very valuable at all. Tort, for one.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by iain
I think this approach is too simplistic.

..... snip ....
I always find it interesting that modern society puts a much higher value of the lives of babies than many older societies did (e.g. the Greeks practised infanticide). Maybe this is connected to our much lower infant mortality levels : we expect babies to live now, in a way which people would not have done even 100 years ago.

It's called the " Cute Index "... And it also scales differently when it comes to your baby and someone else's...

Let em' marinate for 18 or so years, then find a good war to get em' shot in.

This is also the reason why people are more concerned about Dolphins than they are tuna, Panda's than Grizzlies etc..

[whitefork]

Yeah, I'm bad about editing things after the fact. (but it's much easier to win arguments that way).

Since I can see your brain, I should be able to read your mind....

Diezel, very nice to have you posting here by the way. It really elevates the level of discourse. Thank you.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by whitefork
Yeah, I'm bad about editing things after the fact. (but it's much easier to win arguments that way).

Since I can see your brain, I should be able to read your mind....

Diezel, very nice to have you posting here by the way. It really elevates the level of discourse. Thank you.

Thanks, I appreciate that. I'm glad I'm back to posting here and in P&CE. I hope the reasons I left are behind these forums now and it gets back to the way it used to be. ;)

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Diogenes


It's called the " Cute Index "... And it also scales differently when it comes to your baby and someone else's...

Let em' marinate for 18 or so years, then find a good war to get em' shot in.

This is also the reason why people are more concerned about Dolphins than they are tuna, Panda's than Grizzlies etc..

Is that a linear function and could you provide us with a model? :D

(actually, I wouldn't be surprised if someone has already done this, because it does seem to be a real phenomenon)

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Diogenes


It's called the " Cute Index "... And it also scales differently when it comes to your baby and someone else's...

Let em' marinate for 18 or so years, then find a good war to get em' shot in.

This is also the reason why people are more concerned about Dolphins than they are tuna, Panda's than Grizzlies etc..
Very true. And Pandas really got lucky. It has been shown time and time again that the larger an animal's eyes are in relation to it's head, the higher the cute index. "Beady eyes" are very bad for your CI. Pandas actually have beady eyes, but because of those big black circles around them, they aren't noticed and their CI is actually increased.

Things that increase an animals CI:
Big eyes
Furriness (or "Cuddle Factor")
Playfullness
Domestcability
Intelligence
Physical similarity to humans

When an animal has most of these things (like otters) it is almost too cute to be believed.

[iain]

Diesel,

I would say in the situation with the husband/son, the only ethical dilemma is for the immediate persons involved. Standing outside that situation, almost everyone could agree that the father turns the son in and nobody would feel guilty about making that decision. . Yes, I agree that ethical decisions are always much easier to make when your a third party not directly involved or affected. Not quite sure what that tells us though.

Something that concerns me about your dilemma is the certainty that everyone will die if the group is discovered. We don't have that certainty in real life. We can be pretty sure of something, but is that ever enough? By presenting a situation in which something is 100% likely to happen, you remove an important human element from the equation.

To broaden the discussion slightly, do you feel there is a moral equavelance between killing someone and letting someone die through inaction? If the baby is going to die anyway, is it morally the same for you to kill it. Or, to give another example, is it OK for a doctor to murder a patient who is 100% certain to die very soon otherwise? (note : murder, not mercy killing or euthenasia).

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
Diesel,

. Yes, I agree that ethical decisions are always much easier to make when your a third party not directly involved or affected. Not quite sure what that tells us though.

Something that concerns me about your dilemma is the certainty that everyone will die if the group is discovered. We don't have that certainty in real life. We can be pretty sure of something, but is that ever enough? By presenting a situation in which something is 100% likely to happen, you remove an important human element from the equation.

Your right. The reason I put the 100% on it, was that in my experience, some people love to break the spirit of the hypothetical if it isn't constrained as much as possible. Now that we have discussed it in that context, let's now discuss it in a more natural situation.

Say you don't know what the enemy will do. They may kill everyone, they may just kill the men, rape the women, they may just kill the women and capture the men to be put in a prison camp. Now, is killing the baby the right thing to do.

I would still say yes for the same reason as I stated before.

To broaden the discussion slightly, do you feel there is a moral equavelance between killing someone and letting someone die through inaction?

Yes, I do. Inaction in the face of certain death is the same as causing that death yourself, if (and only if) your action could prevent that death.

If the baby is going to die anyway, is it morally the same for you to kill it.

No. Like I stated above, I don't think it is morally right to snap the neck of a dying baby, just because he is dying. The fact that they are going to die anyway has no bearing on the ethics involved (for me, anyway.)

Or, to give another example, is it OK for a doctor to murder a patient who is 100% certain to die very soon otherwise? (note : murder, not mercy killing or euthenasia).

No. The doctor has taken the choice away from a rational person, which is morally wrong.

[Diezel]

AHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You've now put me in an ethical nightmare! I just thought about the dying baby again and dying patient.

I agree with the right of a person to be euthanized if they so choose. So I have no problem with that, but I do have a problem with killing a dying baby. My problem arises because the baby doesn't have a choice. But, if I disagree with killing it because it has no choice, I am contridicting myself when I say that the baby is not a rational creature, therefore there is no duty to the baby.

Toolbox, toolbox, what tool do I need here....

[Diezel]

I got it and I don't have to contridict myself.

Killing the baby serves no duty to any rational creatures. If the baby is killed because it would benefit the parents (the baby will not survive and it is causing undue hardship on the parents), then I have no problem with it.

I believe Kant can be stretched to say that we have a duty to protect babies because they have the potential to become rational creatures, but the duty to a rational creature trumps that duty whenever a conflict arises.

Sorry about the stream of conscience, but I sometimes like to type out my thoughts as they come. Sorry you have the misfortune to have to read them. :)

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by Tricky

Very true. And Pandas really got lucky. It has been shown time and time again that the larger an animal's eyes are in relation to it's head, the higher the cute index. "Beady eyes" are very bad for your CI. Pandas actually have beady eyes, but because of those big black circles around them, they aren't noticed and their CI is actually increased.

Things that increase an animals CI:
Big eyes
Furriness (or "Cuddle Factor")
Playfullness
Domestcability
Intelligence
Physical similarity to humans

When an animal has most of these things (like otters) it is almost too cute to be believed.


Has anyone ever done a study of the ' beadiness' of eyes, among those on death row?

Do you think it might help if they grew fur, painted dark circles around their eyes, and asked everyone
they met " you wanna play ? " ?....:D

( sorry for the highjack Diezel.. really enjoyed the discussion this one generated.. just ask and I will be happy to delete..)

[Diezel]

Originally posted by Diogenes



Has anyone ever done a study of the ' beadiness' of eyes, among those on death row?

Do you think it might help if they grew fur, painted dark circles around their eyes, and asked everyone
they met " you wanna play ? " ?....:D

Hey, I met that guy! Believe me it didn't help. That only brings him up on the other CI (Creepiness Index.)

[Doubt]

Originally posted by Diezel


Hey, I met that guy! Believe me it didn't help. That only brings him up on the other CI (Creepiness Index.)

I guess it is time to go shave my eyes again!

Thanks for the reminder Deizel.

:D

[Loki]

Diezel,

Your right. The reason I put the 100% on it, was that in my experience, some people love to break the spirit of the hypothetical if it isn't constrained as much as possible.
Iain beat me to the punch - I understand why you want to make the situation into a simple yes/no choice, but in doing so you remove the most important factor in life - absence of complete information. *All* human decisions are made in the absence of complete knowledge. If you could truly know the exact consequences of any decision, then I think moral issues would become clear.

Say you don't know what the enemy will do. They may kill everyone, they may just kill the men, rape the women, they may just kill the women and capture the men to be put in a prison camp. Now, is killing the baby the right thing to do.

I would still say yes for the same reason as I stated before.
I'd say that you've introduced a sliding scale. Cost versus benefit. At one end ("the baby's going to die anyway...") it's justified. At the other end ("if they find us, they'll take all our cigarettes before releasing us!") it's clearly not. This is the biggest problem I have with any set of "absolute" rules. They can only be consistent in an environment of 100% knowledge - and that's not the human world.

[roger]

Originally posted by Loki
Iain beat me to the punch - I understand why you want to make the situation into a simple yes/no choice, but in doing so you remove the most important factor in life - absence of complete information. *All* human decisions are made in the absence of complete knowledge. If you could truly know the exact consequences of any decision, then I think moral issues would become clear.

This is another reason why I feel ethics aren't really possible - we we base our decisions on biases, incomplete information, false assumptions, intuition.

Ethics question like Diezel asked, while very interesting to post about, don't really engage me deeply because

1) we don't encounter situations like this in real life

2) for the most part, even when I come up with an answer to them that I find satisfying, they don't help me understand how to act in real life situations.

Still, it's an interesting discussion...

[gnome]

Originally posted by iain
2. If it is moral to kill a baby in that situation, why it is that most people would feel guilty about doing it, rather than happy that they had saved lives. If you were in a group of 10 people and one person had to kill the baby, why would you not volunteer to kill the baby (i.e. be the most "moral" member of the group). I bet not many people would.

I believe that most people would feel guilty about it because, in most situations, killing a baby is unethical. So frequently that the brain gets used to recoiling from the idea of killing an infant.

I suppose it's a form of heuristics, and I imagine it helps out in situations of less than perfect knowledge.

Also, I DON'T agree, Diogenes, that people are more interested in saving dolphins than tuna because dolphins are "cuter". Dolphins are known to be highly intelligent--some suppose they might be on a par with humans as far as mental development (another thread? Any new updates on this idea? Or is it more woo-woo nonsense?)... so it seems perfectly natural to worry more about the fate of what might be a sentient, intelligent being... another "rational being" perhaps :)

A better example would be how it's easier to get sympathy for a cute fuzzy mammal than something less appealing but equally primitive, mentally speaking.

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel
No. Like I stated above, I don't think it is morally right to snap the neck of a dying baby, just because he is dying. The fact that they are going to die anyway has no bearing on the ethics involved (for me, anyway.)
Diezel,

This was from early in your stream of consciousness. I think it still holds true and I'm not misrepresenting your thoughts.

You say that if only the baby was going to die, it would be wrong for you to kill it even though it would die anyway by other means.

My next question is : how much extra good must be done by the baby dying in order for it to change from being morally wrong to being morally right to kill the baby?

For example, if your own life would be saved but no one else's, is it OK to kill the baby then? If you had a promise that a friend would give $10 to charity upon the death of the baby at your hands, is it OK to kill the baby then? If there was a small risk that in the baby's last hours of life it would pass on a disease to another baby, is that OK?

I'm having trouble seeing at what point it suddenly changes from wrong to right to kill poor little Sarah (to give our victim a name; needless to say, she is very cute, with large eyes :) )

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain

Diezel,

This was from early in your stream of consciousness. I think it still holds true and I'm not misrepresenting your thoughts.

You say that if only the baby was going to die, it would be wrong for you to kill it even though it would die anyway by other means.

My next question is : how much extra good must be done by the baby dying in order for it to change from being morally wrong to being morally right to kill the baby?

For example, if your own life would be saved but no one else's, is it OK to kill the baby then? If you had a promise that a friend would give $10 to charity upon the death of the baby at your hands, is it OK to kill the baby then? If there was a small risk that in the baby's last hours of life it would pass on a disease to another baby, is that OK?

I'm having trouble seeing at what point it suddenly changes from wrong to right to kill poor little Sarah (to give our victim a name; needless to say, she is very cute, with large eyes :) )

Like Loki has mentioned earlier, this involves a sliding scale of cost vs. benefit. And I don't think I could give you a point where benefit is greater than (or equal to) cost. I can answer your two examples - yes, to save my life; no, to get the $10. I believe a question like this is entirely situational. An interesting situation similar to this came up in last night's E.R. (hate to keep bringing up T.V. shows, but shows like that are written around ethical dillemas and give us good ideas):

A hooker comes into the E.R. with her stomach slashed. During her treatment, she mentions to a doctor and nurse that she has two kids that she is earning money to raise. She says she is not a junkie and doesn't have a pimp, she is at home when they go to school and at home when they get back and tucks them into bed every night. The kids are 7 and 12 and know nothing of her job. She does admit, though, that she leaves the kids home alone at night, while they are sleeping. The kids come in and they are very happy and well adjusted and it is obvious they love their mother.

What do you do? The doctor calls Social Services and has the children removed from the mother. The nurse disagrees. This is another case like above: Is the cost worth the benefit? Is it better to pull the children from a happy home, just because she is a hooker? Or is it better to have the children stay there with a loving mother that takes care of her children, that just happens to be a hooker? How well adjusted will the children be after they find out why they were taken away?

Tough question. I say the kids should stay with their mother, but I do have a lingering problem with two things - the danger of her job (she just got slashed) and her leaving the kids home at night. But a policeman has just as dangerous a job and they don't pull children out of the homes of policemen. So that leaves me with leaving the kids home alone at night. But the oldest is 12 years old and I have seen many people hire 12 year old baby sitters, so I believe she is old enough to not worry about.

I would have to say the benefit of a central family that loves each other outweighs the cost of her job and working hours. I am sure many would disagree.

[Skeptical Greg]

Originally posted by gnome


I believe that most people would feel guilty about it because, in most situations, killing a baby is unethical. So frequently that the brain gets used to recoiling from the idea of killing an infant.

I suppose it's a form of heuristics, and I imagine it helps out in situations of less than perfect knowledge.

Also, I DON'T agree, Diogenes, that people are more interested in saving dolphins than tuna because dolphins are "cuter". Dolphins are known to be highly intelligent--some suppose they might be on a par with humans as far as mental development (another thread? Any new updates on this idea? Or is it more woo-woo nonsense?)... so it seems perfectly natural to worry more about the fate of what might be a sentient, intelligent being... another "rational being" perhaps :)

A better example would be how it's easier to get sympathy for a cute fuzzy mammal than something less appealing but equally primitive, mentally speaking.

You seem to be arguing with yourself. I also offered the example of cute land mammals.

I do contend that dolphins would get less attention if they were less cute. Their apparent intelligience is a factor, but hardly the most compelling one for a lot of people.. IMO

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel


Like Loki has mentioned earlier, this involves a sliding scale of cost vs. benefit. And I don't think I could give you a point where benefit is greater than (or equal to) cost. Now you're starting to sound a lot more Utilitarian than Kantian with morality being down to "costs and benefits".

For most people, murder is murder and that's wrong. For the utilitarian, murder is only wrong if the costs outweigh the benefits. How do you feel about this?

Here are another couple of examples (from the "Are you a Utilitarian (TM)" test :) )
1. Back to baby Sarah, but this time if the group is found everyone will be killed except for Sarah, who will live a normal life. Do you kill Sarah to save the group?
2. Same as question 1, only this time the group are all elderly people near the end of their lives. Sarah is an unusually intelligent, advanced baby (with her whole life ahead of her, of course). Now what?

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
Now you're starting to sound a lot more Utilitarian than Kantian with morality being down to "costs and benefits".

For most people, murder is murder and that's wrong. For the utilitarian, murder is only wrong if the costs outweigh the benefits. How do you feel about this?

Here are another couple of examples (from the "Are you a Utilitarian (TM)" test :) )
1. Back to baby Sarah, but this time if the group is found everyone will be killed except for Sarah, who will live a normal life. Do you kill Sarah to save the group?
2. Same as question 1, only this time the group are all elderly people near the end of their lives. Sarah is an unusually intelligent, advanced baby (with her whole life ahead of her, of course). Now what?

I'm neither Utilitarian, nor Kantian. :) I follow a conglomeration of Ethical theories, from which, I have formed my own. For me, society is the objective truth. Humans must live in a society to survive, therefore, anything that threatens that society (threaten in the form where that thing could lead to the break up of that society) is immoral. I try to put my theory into the other theories, for sake of argument and common reference, but it will sometimes seem as if I am jumping around. For that, I apologize.

Ok, on to your questions:
1) Yes, you kill Sarah. Sarah has provided no impact to society thus far with her life. The others on the bus may have, or they may have kids that have. Sarah could either become the next Einstein or the next Dahmer. The uncertainty is not enough to save her life.

2) Remember when I mentioned breaking the spirit of the hypothetical? Well, here goes... ;) If everyone else is killed, what happens to Sarah? Is she raised by the enemy? Isn't environment proven to be a very large part of development? So couldn't all the "advanced baby" stuff be negated by a negative living environment? Or, worse, she becomes a master criminal? (see why I constrain my hypos? :D)

But, I will have to say, in the way that you have worded it and following the spirit of it, then you would have to Sarah live. If Sarah is so advanced, losing her may be another piece in the breakup of society, so she needs to stay.

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel


I'm neither Utilitarian, nor Kantian. :) I follow a conglomeration of Ethical theories, from which, I have formed my own.That sounds OK to me. I doubt that many people who have given the matter serious thought slavishly follow any one of the "great" thinkers - they have all been found wanting.

But, I will have to say, in the way that you have worded it and following the spirit of it, then you would have to Sarah live. If Sarah is so advanced, losing her may be another piece in the breakup of society, so she needs to stay. What I find interesting here is that you don't seem to assign much value to life for its own sake. You seem to be suggesting that I have a right to life, not as a result of my being human or as part of some universal right but purely because of the benefit I bring to society (including myself as part of that society I guess).

Many would say that this is dangerous stance to take - that murder is justified if society is made a better place overall. Once you drop the idea of some sort of "sanctity of life", is that the slippery slope to justifying the persecution of minorities (because the majority is better off and this outweighs the harm done to the minority)?

[iain]

As I've been questioning Diezel, its only fair that I should put my own opinion down, I guess.

Most people have a strong idea of some sort of sanctity of life : that it is never right to murder (e.g. in most countries, assisting someone to commit suicide is still murder). However, I can't fully accept this. Life isn't sacred (people die all the time, its natural). There are also exceptions to this rule (wars, death penalty, abortion) where many people feel it is OK to kill. In addition, I see no source for this sanctity of life (except for God(s) of course, for those who believe in such things). So I'm not happy about that one.

I don't like the "weigh up the pluses and minuses" approach much either, for the reasons in my previous post : there is a slippery slope and this one slides right down it.

The idea I feel most comfortable with is that morality is just a bunch of rules which work for a particular person or society. With no divine or sound metaphysical underpinning I don't see what else they can be.

But this of course lands us slap bang in the land of ethical relativism. If ethics is just a bunch of rules, what basis do I have for saying that my rules are right and yours are wrong? How can I criticise others (at least outside my own society) for being immoral? And am I wrong by definition if my morals differ from the majority view in my own society.

The whole thing isn't pretty and I've had far more success finding problems than finding answers (it all seemed much simpler before I studied this stuff at University. Damn education :mad: )

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
That sounds OK to me. I doubt that many people who have given the matter serious thought slavishly follow any one of the "great" thinkers - they have all been found wanting.

That is the interesting part about Ethics - nobody has ever come up with a universal, all encompassing theory. They all have their flaws.

What I find interesting here is that you don't seem to assign much value to life for its own sake. You seem to be suggesting that I have a right to life, not as a result of my being human or as part of some universal right but purely because of the benefit I bring to society (including myself as part of that society I guess).

Many would say that this is dangerous stance to take - that murder is justified if society is made a better place overall. Once you drop the idea of some sort of "sanctity of life", is that the slippery slope to justifying the persecution of minorities (because the majority is better off and this outweighs the harm done to the minority)?

This is a very valid concern. The only check I really have (and one distinguishing difference between Utilitarians and I) is that I don't believe society has to better itself, it only has to exist and not break apart. Think of the most "immoral" things that any successful (in the sense that they did survive for awhile) society incorporates - murder, rape, cannibalism, etc.... You can easily see that any of these things, if left unchecked, could lead to the breakdown of that society. The break down of the society will lead to the extinction of those in that society. So we feel anything that will lead to the breakdown of society is wrong.

Now, there is a very wide margin in that for subjective interpretation. Some might see pre-marital or homosexual sex as a threat to society, while they laugh at those that think wearing skirts shorter than ankle length is a threat to society. On the most part, it is relative. I differ from relativists, though, in that I don't believe everything is relative. Each of these relative choices is based on the objective truth that whatever threatens the breakdown of society is wrong.

So, back to your original concern (and to incorporate and add to what whitefork and I were discussing earlier), a human is an individual with all inherent rights of being born a sentient and rational creature, but he has a duty to protect the society in which he lives, for, without the society, he would have no life. In that light, you can see that there is no duty to better the society, just a duty not to destroy it. Killing minorities would not better society; it would create tension and lead to the downfall of society. (I call a temporary timeout, because I must discuss the Nazi's, but I don't want to end the thread ;)) Keep in mind the definition of society I defined earlier. Nazi Germany decided they needed to get rid of the Jews, to better their society. But a large portion of the rest of society (the rest of the world) decided that was a threat to society (mankind) and had to do something about it (let's not have a tangent about us not knowing fully what they were doing to the Jews and that not being the reason we got involved in the war :).)

(time in :))

So, killing minorities might sound like a good idea for the benefit of your society, but it will never be to the benefit to society at large, thus a check is in place.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
As I've been questioning Diezel, its only fair that I should put my own opinion down, I guess.

Most people have a strong idea of some sort of sanctity of life : that it is never right to murder (e.g. in most countries, assisting someone to commit suicide is still murder). However, I can't fully accept this. Life isn't sacred (people die all the time, its natural). There are also exceptions to this rule (wars, death penalty, abortion) where many people feel it is OK to kill. In addition, I see no source for this sanctity of life (except for God(s) of course, for those who believe in such things). So I'm not happy about that one.

I don't like the "weigh up the pluses and minuses" approach much either, for the reasons in my previous post : there is a slippery slope and this one slides right down it.

The idea I feel most comfortable with is that morality is just a bunch of rules which work for a particular person or society. With no divine or sound metaphysical underpinning I don't see what else they can be.

But this of course lands us slap bang in the land of ethical relativism. If ethics is just a bunch of rules, what basis do I have for saying that my rules are right and yours are wrong? How can I criticise others (at least outside my own society) for being immoral? And am I wrong by definition if my morals differ from the majority view in my own society.

The whole thing isn't pretty and I've had far more success finding problems than finding answers (it all seemed much simpler before I studied this stuff at University. Damn education :mad: )

LOL :D

Maybe my last post will help you put something together. It is something I have worked on for years. That is the short form.

[iain]

Originally posted by Diezel
Maybe my last post will help you put something together. It is something I have worked on for years. That is the short form. I think I'lll go away and think about it, probably re-read your post a couple of times and come back in a day or two.

[Diezel]

Originally posted by iain
I think I'lll go away and think about it, probably re-read your post a couple of times and come back in a day or two.

Sounds good. But you might need more than a day or two. I've been thinking about it for years and still not sure if I am convinced. ;)

[DialecticMaterialist]

I'd kill the baby. It has nothing to do with me, I don't really like babies and am thus not willing to let a lot of people die for one.

What ethical theory am I using? Basically teleological. I believe this to be a matter of value judgement(emotions) basically the babies existence for a few minutes longer vs the lives of everyone else, the baby perhaps dying a less humane death, my life, etc. I value the latter more then the former. Now if this was my child, the issue may be more difficult: perhaps I'd make a run for it or find a way to shut it up w/o killing it(shove my hand in its mouth and hold its tongue).

[iain]

Diezel,

Can you clarify a couple of things for me please.

You say The only check I really have (and one distinguishing difference between Utilitarians and I) is that I don't believe society has to better itself, it only has to exist and not break apart. Think of the most "immoral" things that any successful (in the sense that they did survive for awhile) society incorporates - murder, rape, cannibalism, etc.... You can easily see that any of these things, if left unchecked, could lead to the breakdown of that society. The break down of the society will lead to the extinction of those in that society. So we feel anything that will lead to the breakdown of society is wrong. If I am considering an action, let's say a murder or theft, and I think about the effect on society, there is almost nothing I can do which will possibly lead to any breakdown in society. People get murdered all the time and society goes on. You seem to be asking to me think "what if everyone did this?", but why should I? There are also cases where thinking "what if everyone did this" leads to absurd conclusions.

e.g. Should I drive to Amsterdam today? What if everyone drove to Amsterdam today? There would be gridlock and chaos. Therefore it is immoral for me to drive to Amsterdam.
So, back to your original concern (and to incorporate and add to what whitefork and I were discussing earlier), a human is an individual with all inherent rights of being born a sentient and rational creature, but he has a duty to protect the society in which he lives, for, without the society, he would have no life. In that light, you can see that there is no duty to better the society, just a duty not to destroy it. Killing minorities would not better society; it would create tension and lead to the downfall of society. 1. Is there really no situation where killing a minority would be good for a society? Surely there are cases where silencing a political/religious minority helps stabilise society and does not lead to the downfall due to external sources (e.g. crushing of the democracy movement in Burma/Myanmar; Chinese actions in Mongolia).

2. Is someone acting morally if they believe they are acting to preserve society (e.g. our friend Adolph) or must they have some ability to see the future and determine the outcome of their actions?

3. Do you mean keep society in its current form, or just to maintain some sort of society (i.e. not anarchy). If the former, that would seemt to make revolutionaries' actions immoral by definition. If the latter, then pretty much anything is morally OK since some sort of society always exists.

4. Do you make any distinction between types of society (totalitarian, democratic, monarchical etc.) and, if so, why?