Ethical dillemas

[teacher]

How about posts of difficult situations. You can post new dillemas or give your view on them as they appear. Maybe some from other threads could be added - I especially liked the Zimmer link:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2..._Morality.html

from which I've extracted these dillemas:

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You’re approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kills the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take responsibility of changing the trolley’s path by hitting the switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him, and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you let reality play out and allow five people to die?

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

[BeholdTheTruth]

Your children or grand-children are playing in the street, and you notice a truck is hurtling down upon them. You have enough time to save your children. What do you do?

a. Nothing. You're too busy worrying about your own problems.

b. You pray to your God to do the saving for you and them.

c. You do all you possibly can do to save your own flesh & blood.

Now imagine that your grandchildren and theirs are going to be victims of acid rain, ozone holes, etc. Plus imagine that your posterity is pleading with you to do more to save their ecology. What do you do to help them emerge from their emergency?

a. Too little or nothing. You're too busy worrying about your own problems.

b. You leave saving your flesh & blood to God (whatever "God" means to you.)

OR

c. You do all you can do to help others also understand that God (whatever "God" means to them) is NOT going to be saving their future generations until millions more of us are also doing more to save our own.

[Humphreys]

Originally Posted by teacher

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You’re approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kills the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take responsibility of changing the trolley’s path by hitting the switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

Fortunately, nothing in life is ever that certain. In reality, we'd have to weigh up the probabilities and most likely choose to turn to the right and at the same time hope the single worker does not die. But that's obviously not the point of these dilemmas.

If this situation were possible, and the outcomes certain, changing the trolley's direction would be the correct decision.

Originally Posted by teacher

2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him, and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you let reality play out and allow five people to die?

Again, you'd have to, if the outcomes were certain.

In real life, the outcomes would not be certain though, so inaction would most likely be the right thing to do.

Originally Posted by teacher

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

Because you are the only person who can save that baby, so it's your responsibility, whereas it is not your responsibility to save children you have never met.

[Marc L]

Originally Posted by teacher

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You’re approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kills the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take responsibility of changing the trolley’s path by hitting the switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

The problem with this is that it's not likely. If the trolley's far enough away that I'm just starting to brake, then there's time for me to do other things, like sound the horn. Also, trolleys make enough noise that the workers will likely hear it before I get there. Especially since it's not likely they're working right on the switch.

However, were such an unlikely event to occur, I'd steer towards the single worker, as it's easier for one person to move quickly then five in a group.

Quote:

2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him, and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you let reality play out and allow five people to die?

Again, not likely. If the man is big enough to stop the trolley, he's going to be too big for me to push off the footbridge. To address the ethical issue, however, it would me immoral for me to push the man to his death. While the trolley killing people is accidental (regardless of which path the driver chooses), me killing the man is intentional, and thus, murder.

Quote:

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

The two situations are not comparable. In the first, the baby is drowning due to an accidental situation. Somehow it fell into a pond. Since it's a baby (as opposed to a child) I can safely assume that it did not get to the pond under it's own power. Some sort of caregiver (parent, babysitter) is nearby. In the second, the 'millions of children' are probably the victims of poverty.

Why do I make the distinction? In the first case, the baby's life is in immediate danger. By not helping (assuming I'm the only one around), I am allowing the baby to die when it could be easily preventable.

In the second case, as cold as it sounds, it's not my responsibility to help the 'millions of children' suffering from poverty (if it were even possible!) I refuse to feel guilty about being able to afford a nice meal while others can't. Now, it would be nice of me to give to charities that help out poor people, but my resources are still my resources to give as I see fit. Why are poor people more deserving of my money than I am?

And where do you draw the line? Should I get a cardboard box and live on the streets, giving all my money to the poor? What good does that do? I have a wife and daughter, are they less deserving to be taken care of then the 'millions of children' in your example?

Again, it's a good idea to help others that need it, that doesn't mean I should feel guilty if I can't or won't.


Marc

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Humphreys

Because you are the only person who can save that baby, so it's your responsibility, whereas it is not your responsibility to save children you have never met.

Why not?
And concerning responsibility, if you do nothing, a child will die. If you do something, that child won't die. I don't see the distinction in the two situations. The only difference is that you don't yet know which child it is yet. But it's still a child that only you can save (if you do nothing, the child dies).

Or how about this walking past the pond, you notice a bunch of people turning their heads to look at something, stopping for a moment, and then walking on. As you look over to see what it is, you see a drowning baby. The other people could easily save the child, but clearly none are interested in doing so. What do you do?

[Humphreys]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Why not?
And concerning responsibility, if you do nothing, a child will die. If you do something, that child won't die. I don't see the distinction in the two situations.

A child is going to die no matter what, because there are too many to save.

However, if I do nothing, the particular child in front of me will die for CERTAIN and there is now way he could possibly be saved. he is now my responsibility completely. However, if I don't donate money to starving children, any particular child could be save by any particular person, there is no particular responsibility on MY shoulders.

There IS a difference.

[Humphreys]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Or how about this walking past the pond, you notice a bunch of people turning their heads to look at something, stopping for a moment, and then walking on. As you look over to see what it is, you see a drowning baby. The other people could easily save the child, but clearly none are interested in doing so. What do you do?

Again I save a child, because that particular child may die if I do nothing.

He is still my responsbility. I don't know if the next guy will get there in time to save him.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by teacher

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed.
2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge.

These exact dilemmas were presented at a party I once was at. This particular party happened to be all Jewish. Apparently, it's a pretty common and well known dilemma presented in some set of well known Jewish teaching somewhere. The Jewish instruction is that in each case, you should do nothing. It is not your position to decide who lives and who dies. That's up to God. Even if the entire nation of Israel were on the side of the tracks the train was heading toward, you aren't supposed to pull the lever.

I should say I don't know how "official" that position is, or where it came from. It's just something I heard at a party where Jews were discussing ethical dilemmas. For all I know, it was a column in the local synagogue newsletter.

My objection to that position is that "doing nothing" is actually "doing something." Either way, you are deciding who lives and who dies. The fact that in one case you pull a lever and in one case you don't doesn't matter, at least to me. So, for my part, I give different answers.

For 1) I would say that we either do not have enough information, or there may be no answer. One thing I am fairly certain of in my own view of ethics is that the body count doesn't matter. Five versus one isn't a good enough reason to say who should live or die.

For 2) I would be very surprised if I could come up with any circumstance in which the fat guy should be pushed onto the track. The people on the track, be they five or one, at least know that they are standing on trolley tracks. They bear some responsibility. The fat guy is standing minding his own business when someone else comes along and decides his life is not worth as much as those other peoples' lives. You might be able to come up with an analogous scenario where I would say that "pushing the fat guy" is ok, but I doubt it. In general, dragging someone into a situation seems worse to me than letting those involved suffer.

For 3) the difference is in the absolute knowledge of how your actions will affect the outcome. Let us suppose that it is literally true that giving 200 dollars would save a child's life. There is rarely that much certainty in charitable giving, but let us suppose that it were true. If so, that child might grow up, and have children, who will then starve. Have I saved one person's life in order to create others, just to be pushed onto the tracks themselves.? If the charitable giving merely prolongs the condition that causes the suffering, the fact that someone got a temporary reprieve is not much consolation. In the case of the drowning child, it is clear that immediate action will actually solve a problem, not merely defer it to other days.

But dilemma 3 does point out a real ethical dilemma, at which I fail on a regular basis. Even if you decide that giving money to the children's fund is a waste of time, there is some money you could spend somehow that would make someone else's life better. Did I make an unethical choice when I bought an expensive minivan recently, and had to cut my charitable contribution budget to afford it? Probably I did.

[KingMerv00]

Quote:

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

You sit there typing on the internet. Most likely you are paying for that service when your money and time could have gone to starving children.

It is an extreme example of self-sacrifice I know but the point is that everyone has their lines they will not cross. Life isn't so black and white.

[Dogdoctor]

First off these are hypothetical situations and in real life there would be more options than you give and you would not know the outcome ahead of time.
1) I would go for the lesser populated area and attempt to warn the individuals
2)How could I know pushing the man off would stop the trolley? I might jump off myself if I knew or offer the man the choice to jump but no I would not push him off.
3)A few dollars may help a person survive a few days but ultimately unless you are going to teach them to support themselves and to not reproduce then you are creating a bigger problem. If people did not die there would be way too many people on this world. I for one do not want to support endless hand fed individuals. This is the historical mistake of the missionaries all over the world. Things are not so simple.

[teacher]

Hi Meadmaker.
You spoke a lot of numbers not counting or mnattering to the ethical debate.
If on one side it was your family and on the other...

Would this in any way tempt you against your principles to act in a certain way?

One of the points which you may have spotted is that we tend to be more emotionsl the closer we get to a situation, e.g. we'd rather (and feel less bad about) pressing a button to kill someone than smashing them over the head with a shozel... unless he's just killed your sister!

Doing nothing is a nice option under certain conditions (especially wiuthin theism I think) and you can't be accused of making a mistake.

Here's a classic ethical dillema analogy regarding the justification of abortion -about a theoretical famous violinist:

http://falcon.tamucc.edu/~philosophy...g_analogy.html

[Beerina]

Quote:

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You’re approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kills the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take responsibility of changing the trolley’s path by hitting the switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

You scream bloody murder, hit the switch, and hope they get out of the way.

Quote:

2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him, and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you let reality play out and allow five people to die?

"Why didn't you jump over and block the trolly, rather than killing this man next to you?"

It's easy to be the hero, with someone else's life.

Quote:

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

The most ethical thing would be to initiate a war against their dictatorial governments, institute strong freedom-based capitalistic system, and let them climb out of the starving gutter themselves.

Nobody has the right to be a dictator. Nobody has the right to strip away freedoms just because they're the best at killing off their political enemies.

Stop believing in theories that are promises akin to beliving in religions. Simply graph prosperity vs. relative freedom in the economic realm.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Beerina

"Why didn't you jump over and block the trolly, rather than killing this man next to you?"

Because he's a lot bigger than you and according to the scenario, that seems to count.

So far I only see justifications. What's wrong with suggesting that a lot of our morality is based upon emotion? For myself, if I look at myself with clarity, and ask why do you think X is wrong, it's easy to see that there is more emotion than reason behind it. I try my best to look at moral issues rationally, but from the very beginning there is emotion behind it.

I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, though it is something that we all have to be careful of. But it does lead to situations in which two things that are logically the same from a moral standpoint will be treated differently. And that leads to a post hoc rationalisation that suggests that the two things really are different.

Now, maybe the moral dillemas presented are unrealistic. That's not the point, however. The point is, assuming that you have the level of certainty that they suggest, why do we still feel that there is a difference between the two?

[Dogdoctor]

Yeah so the source of morals is partly within our DNA and partly cultural assimilated values and partly our attempts to be logical. I wouldn't say our morals are emotional but perhaps has the same sources as our emotions.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Because he's a lot bigger than you and according to the scenario, that seems to count.

Well, good luck shoving someone who's bigger than you to their death. Methinks one way or another, you're the one going over the rail.

Quote:

So far I only see justifications. What's wrong with suggesting that a lot of our morality is based upon emotion? For myself, if I look at myself with clarity, and ask why do you think X is wrong, it's easy to see that there is more emotion than reason behind it. I try my best to look at moral issues rationally, but from the very beginning there is emotion behind it.

In discussions like this, I frequently point out that, logically, if you wanted the most people to live the longest, you'd lock the vast majority up in jail, run them around the yard a few hours a day, and feed them a bland diet of healthy food.

Anyone wanna sign up for that?

I didn't think so.

Maybe there is more to life than just a beating heart.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Beerina

In discussions like this, I frequently point out that, logically, if you wanted the most people to live the longest, you'd lock the vast majority up in jail, run them around the yard a few hours a day, and feed them a bland diet of healthy food.

Anyone wanna sign up for that?

I didn't think so.

Maybe there is more to life than just a beating heart.

Of course there is, and I'm the first to agree with you about that. I don't think that anyone has suggested that the only thing of value is life. There has to be some value to that life - survival only allows you the chance to experience those things that have value.

Survival is meaningless on it's own. I want to be happy and enjoy my life. Whatever that means. And I want to know that my life hasn't caused anyone else harm. Which certainly isn't possible, but maybe I can minimize it. I'd even like to do some good while I'm here. Which is trickier. Point is, like you, and I think everyone, I want to do more than just live for a while and then die.

But what does that have to do with the discussion?

ETA, oh, I just reread it. I think I understand your point... It sounds like when I said that there is more emotion than reason behind my own morality I consider that a bad thing, and that suggested that morality should be based upon nothing but accounting. (If I'm reading this wrong, please correct me.)
That's not really what I was getting at. I understand that emotion suggests what is good. But it can really only do so for you. While I consider your suffering to be as wrong as mine, I don't know that I'm logically obliged to do so. And I think morality should be based upon more than just: If it feels like it's bad, then its wrong. If it feels good, it's right. That doesn't work for me, it's far to easy to rationalise, and there are far too many times that what feels right to one person is morally abhorant (take agressive racism for instance).
So, what I'm getting at is that while I think that emotion needs to be a part of morality, I think it's important to realise the role emotion plays in it. (and I'm not sure that emotion is the right word here). It's very hard to see when we're forming beleifs and opinions for emotional rather than rational reasons (and I say this understanding that emotion can be a part of rational thought). See religious belief.
It's easy to blindly follow your emotional reactions to moral situations, but I want to do more than that. I hope to understand, if that is possible. Finding fairness and consistency within my own moral system is important to me.

[geni]

Originally Posted by teacher

How about posts of difficult situations. You can post new dillemas or give your view on them as they appear. Maybe some from other threads could be added - I especially liked the Zimmer link:

http://www.carlzimmer.com/articles/2..._Morality.html

from which I've extracted these dillemas:

1.) Imagine you’re at the wheel of a trolley and the brakes have failed. You’re approaching a fork in the track at top speed. On the left side, five rail workers are fixing the track. On the right side, there is a single worker. If you do nothing, the trolley will bear left and kills the five workers. The only way to save five lives is to take responsibility of changing the trolley’s path by hitting the switch. Then you will kill one worker. What would you do?

Hitting 5 people is more likely to stop the thing so you can safely get off.

Quote:

2.) Now imagine that you are watching the runaway trolley from a footbridge. This time there is no fork in the track. Instead, five workers are on it, facing certain death. But you happen to be standing next to a big man. If you sneak up on him, and push him off the footbridge, he will fall to his death. Because he is so big, he will stop the trolley. Do you willfully kill one man, or do you let reality play out and allow five people to die?

There is a risk of him resiting and you getting hurt.

Quote:

3.) “Let’s say you’re walking by a pond and there’s a drowning baby, ” Greene says, over chicken tikka masala. “If you said, ‘I’ve just paid $200 for these shoes and the water would ruin them, so I won’t save the baby,’ you’d be an awful, horrible person. But there are millions of children around the world in the same situation, where just a little money for medicine or food could save their life. And yet we don’t consider ourselves monsters for having this dinner rather than giving the money to Oxfam. Why is that?”

How closely realted is the baby to you and what risk is involved in rescueing it?

[IllegalArgument]

1. Kill the one worker, lesser suffering
2. Don't kill the big man, let the accident happen
3. Your direct action in eating that meal is not causing children to starve. Where as not saving a drowning child is something which is a direct result of your actions.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by IllegalArgument

1. Kill the one worker, lesser suffering
2. Don't kill the big man, let the accident happen
3. Your direct action in eating that meal is not causing children to starve. Where as not saving a drowning child is something which is a direct result of your actions.

Why is not spending money to save a child less direct than not jumping in a lake? Is it because you don't know which specific child it is?

Of course if we're arguing that giving to a charity won't save any children in the long run, then I can't say the two are equal. But if we know that one more child will live if you give that $300 to charity than if you didn't, would the situations still be different?

What's wrong with a hypothetical question? Saying "well, it isn't like that" isn't an answer to the question "What would you do...".

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by geni

Hitting 5 people is more likely to stop the thing so you can safely get off.

There is a risk of him resiting and you getting hurt.

How closely realted is the baby to you and what risk is involved in rescueing it?

Why should I care about the propogation of my own genes?

[geni]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Why should I care about the propogation of my own genes?

Because if they die out you lose.

[clarsct]

1) The lever for changing the track is ON THE GROUND, not in the trolley.
You're f**ked.

2) You don't need a big man, you need a small object to throw at the guys below, get their attention and point towards the trolley.

3) The baby in the water is nothing like the starving children. When you give your money to charity, you have no idea where it goes, unless oyu do some research. Even then, there is little garauntee that the money is going to the children. No direct action of yours is going to effect a large social change. But one can wade into the water and help the baby. If you worked for your money, then you have all rights to spend it as you would. It is a matter of immediate danger to life and health vs. a possible threat.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by teacher

Hi Meadmaker.
You spoke a lot of numbers not counting or mnattering to the ethical debate.
If on one side it was your family and on the other...

Would this in any way tempt you against your principles to act in a certain way?

Absolutely. Although, I'm not certain what my principles are in this case. I would like to think that I am guided by the idea of causing the least suffering to people, but am I really? Do I actually act that way on a day to day basis? Probably not.

My point about numbers is that just body counts doesn't matter.

An analogous, real world, politically controversial situation involves allocation of medical research money. There has been a lot of talk over the last 15 years or so about whether we are spending enough money, or too much money, on AIDS research. One common argument is that heart disease kills more people than AIDS, so why should we divert research funds from one to another? In some sense, we are "pullling the lever" to go toward the heart attack victims in order to spare the AIDs victims.

In my opinion, the numbers of bodies isn't the deciding factor. There are other factors to consider when deciding who lives and who dies. If I had to pull the train lever to kill this person or those people, the identity of the people would be more important to my decision than the number of people. For example, if there was one young man and five old men, I would plow into the old men, all other things being equal.

And in the end, if I thought there was a tiny, tiny, chance of saving both groups, I think I would do that, even though the most likely outcome would be that one group was almost certainly condemned to death by my choice.

[Meadmaker]

Originally Posted by Roboramma

Why should I care about the propogation of my own genes?

I suspect you know the answer, but I'll answer this probably rhetorical question. There are two possible answers.

If we accept the premise of materialism, then there is no "should". You will do it because you are programmed to do it. Your genes have survived because they programmed you to take actions which resulted in their propogation.

If, on the other hand, you reject materialism, you should not care. Under that circumstance, your life might have some other meaning not related to its constuent atoms and their arrangement into relatively stable patterns.

[Z]

Here's my own hypothetical moral dillema:

You're near a lake, and you spot a lawyer and a politician, drowning. You're the only person who can save them, but you can only save one of them. Which do you do...



















...take a nap, or watch a movie?

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by IllegalArgument

2. Don't kill the big man, let the accident happen

There is a certain correctness here, a culpability spectrum, if you will. While the people on the tram, or working in front of it, are largely innocent, they are more guilty than the big guy just standing there. They have implicitely accepted a minor risk by boarding the tram, or working on the railway. Time to pay the piper, I guess.

Of course, if the big guy is named Lex Luthor, and he sabotaged the brakes on the tram, then heave him over right quick now!

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by zaayrdragon

Here's my own hypothetical moral dillema:

You're near a lake, and you spot a lawyer and a politician, drowning. You're the only person who can save them, but you can only save one of them. Which do you do...



















...take a nap, or watch a movie?

While funny, one must also consider that this is a world largely created by those sacks of **** in the first place.

Hence there might very well be a law that you must help in some form, calling 911 if nothing else.

Also, they both have powerful lawyer buddies, who'll think nothing of suing you because you did nothing. Expecially if it comes out in court that this was a philosophical puzzle that you magically knew you could save one of them with 100% certainty and safety.

And, worse, even if you do save one of them, you still might get sued because the dead one's estate will sue because you didn't pick them.

Don't laugh. I knew a guy whose wife was getting sued because, get this, a group of guys turned right from a cross street, right in front of her, and she rear-ended them. Now this was a scam, and all parties knew about it (they had sued for exactly this thing several times before), but that's beside the point. Their lawyer (as in kill-all-the-lawyers-and-here's-why) claimed she was responsible for their (largely psychological) problems because she chose to rear end them rather than swerve into oncoming traffic. That rear-ending them was the safer thing from her point of view was irrelevant; she could have chosen to die, and far more likely kill people in some other vehicle, and thus spare his clients their psychological problems. Since she did not, she owed them, and they needed to get pay-ay-aid.

[Roboramma]

Originally Posted by Meadmaker

I suspect you know the answer, but I'll answer this probably rhetorical question. There are two possible answers.

If we accept the premise of materialism, then there is no "should". You will do it because you are programmed to do it. Your genes have survived because they programmed you to take actions which resulted in their propogation.

Actually, I disagree. If I accept materialism I accept that I tend to want to do things that will tend to increase the average success of my genes.
The reason I have that tendancy is that I've been "programmed" (I use the quotes because I think the word is almost right, but I'm not sure that it's perfect) with emotional (fear, disgust, love, etc.) and physical (pain, pleasure, etc) responses to stimuli that, in the environment that our ancestors lived in, will produce that tendancy on average.

This is pretty much what you said. The only point of divergence is that we don't live in that ancestral environment, and on average isn't always. One response can trump another even when that will be in this particular case maladaptive.
Basically, though I'm driven by selfish genes, it doesn't mean I'm selfish. Or even care about the propogation of my genes. Because I really don't. It's cool that that's possible, considering that a lot of what I am came about from the survival of those genes.

As to the other point of disagreement that I have. Well, I'm not sure that materialism means there can't be a should. I'm just not sure that it allows it either. But from a personal perspective there certainly is one. Should I eat something or starve myself for a month? There might not be any grand meaning, and it might not really matter if I do one rather than the other, but for myself I'd much rather eat.
Should I save the kid from the pond? Again, it might not matter much in the long run, but for myself, I think I should. As to what that means, I'm not really sure.

Quote:

If, on the other hand, you reject materialism, you should not care. Under that circumstance, your life might have some other meaning not related to its constuent atoms and their arrangement into relatively stable patterns.

I agree that's an option. I still wonder where that meaning would come from. Which isn't to say that I don't think it could be meaningful, I just don't see meaning derived from some higher or spiritual source as any more meaningful than that derived from my own conciousness, even if I do know why it evolved.
I don't reject meaning, I'm just not sure that it's possible for it to be any bigger than individuals and their experiences (of pleasure, love, hate, pain, fear, anguish, despair, greif, etc. Those things do mean something to me.)


Sorry for the long response meadmaker. I think we agree about a lot. I'm just trying to say that as a materialist life doesn't have to be meaningless. At least, I certainly don't think so.

[Jellby]

Originally Posted by geni

Because if they die out you lose.

I disagree. Whatever happens to my genes in other people doesn't affect me (unless we consider the possibility of getting an organ transplant or a blood transfusion in the future). Whether my genes are propagated or not should not be part of the moral/ethics/whatever; it may play some role in instinctive behaviour, evolution and that, but I'd like to think I have some free will, free from my genes.

What does matter is the affection I could have for that child, be it my son, cousin, neighbour, or a friend's child. It matters because it has an influence on my personal feelings, I don't love genes, I love people.

[Roboramma]

Hi Jellby, well said. To be fair, though, I think geni was joking.

[Beerina]

Originally Posted by Jellby

What does matter is the affection I could have for that child, be it my son, cousin, neighbour, or a friend's child. It matters because it has an influence on my personal feelings, I don't love genes, I love people.

The genes just want you to think that.