Re: Maemo Morality
 

All three questions are identical in my opinion. The underlying point of the debate is:

Is 1 life worth many?

The answer to me is No. Granted, I'm human, and thus there is a certain weighted system I apply personally: Such as, if the 1 is my wife - you can stack up hundreds and get nothing out of me.

OTOH: Talking simply about strangers, I hold no imagination that I'm god. I do, however, have a logical mind and the way I see it is this.

The idea that life is priceless is actually incomprehensible because then obviously life equals other life. That is truly what it boils down, a mathematical equation. 1 == 1. No one life, at a fundamental level, is worth any more or less than any other life. Ted Bundy is worth no more or less than Albert Einstein. The operative here is what that life is worth to you.

Save 4 strangers; or allow 4 to die - I have a higher chance of getting at least worthwhile person in the lot of 5 :D. (although the reverse is also true, higher chance of saving a murderer/rapist/thief/general a-hole/etc).

To me, flipping the switch is worth it. Police Officers are faced with this sort or thing all the time.

Does a Police Officer shoot at a suspect who is armed and firing randomly into a crowd: Knowing full well that his bullet can miss and possibly hit an innocent bystander, including a child? IMHO - Yes.

I am also a former Military man and would not have survived without this mentality.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

well said! although as for the mugging i think i'd walk on bye, it wouldn't be easy because my first instinct would be to help, but i've known of occasions when a straightforward mugging where no one would have been seriously hurt (okay having your wallet nicked kinda hurts, but not THAT much), turned into a serious stabbing because someone tried to help...

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Almost. :)

There is no true measure of the difference in the value of a particular life compared to another.

All life has value. Morally the value is the same whether it is 1, 5, or 11 million lives. The act of snuffing one out has the same moral consequences as hosing a million.

I would do nothing and live with that consequence rather than any of the other choices.
You have no control over a lot of factors and therefore can not predict the outcome with any certainty. Even if you could you are asked to make a value judgment based on what? How fat someone is?

What would change would be, as you suggested, if you were any of the affected actors and had the opportunity to make such decisions. Then, I believe your moral obligation is to do what you have to do in order to survive. But that's me thinking logically. I don't know if I would actually sacrifice myself for the good of the many.


The trap here is we are thinking if this then that. When there is a third choice... do nothing. "mu"

Re: Maemo Morality
 

There's a reason I believe in the United States Second Amendment and the right for citizens to bear arms and protect themselves. I consider that to be at the very heart of this "morality" discussion.

So, I personally, would take action (because I personally would have the means to) - and then have to deal with the fallout of the people that like to hind-sight/sideline quarterback high adrenaline and dynamic situations after the fact.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

No, that complicates the situation. I wouldn't kill anybody actively other than in self defense.
The first situation is relatively simple so you can give a short answer based on math.
But most real situations aren't that simple, so you know something about what happened before and who are the people and else.

I believe most people would apply math if they are forced to give a quick answer on the street. But they are totally disconnected from the situation. This being easily exploitable by warmongers makes it a good choice as propaganda material. :rolleyes:

@ysss: A slight variation. There is a blackbox with 6 people in it. And it has a knob that let's you choose how many people it kills. It has two settings, 1 and 6 and it's set to 6. Do you change it to 1? :D

Re: Maemo Morality
 

"All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing."
-Unknown

;)

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Morality and military training are not the same. The question is about a switch and no repercussions for a reason. What if five armoire-sized people are beating on <whatever> and I'm a little girl? What if I know they are drunk and likely to kill me too? Do I still render assistance? Knowing I have no assistance to give, am not trained nor prepared and going to increase the body count to 2?

I am not trained in combat, and if I see a scrawny guy abusing another I might get in on it. If they are large I will not. Morality of the situation is the same, with different results.

Don't get me wrong, I have the utmost respect for people who risk personal harm to save others. Note the word "risk", by which I mean non-zero change of harm. When chances of harm/death reach close to 100%, it's no longer courage. I don't plan on dieing with someone for the heck of it nor do I expect anyone to jump in to keep me company.

The only reason people help is because they think they have a decent chance of making it out alive. After all, if someone is mugged and you pull out a gun and blow your brains all over them that'd likely end that robbery right there. The approach is unpopular.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I guarantee there would be repercussions though. At least in the United States. If you played a hand at all in who died you would end up in court. Either Legal or Civil, depending on the state/county you live in, who your AG is, and whether the family members of the one choose to Sue you for everything you own for killing their precious son/daughter/husband/wife/whatever.

EDIT: Actually, I'd venture even the family of the 5 could sue you if you were even *there* and did nothing... courts here kinda suck in that regard...

To the first: If their chance of survival is pretty much 0% and your chance to change that is greater than 0% is it not worth pursuing to at least have a chance?

As to the second I disagree: Nobody, usually, intends to get themselves killed by helping another person - but the moment you make the decision to assist you accept that possible outcome.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

Indeed that is a possibility. In Europe chances of actually getting hung for this is slim (figuratively). In Romania, stuff like this happened a few times (including shot burglars) and each time the defender had no penal repercussions tacked.

They tried that too here - career burglar shot at night in someone's house. Sister argued loss of income. To my knowledge, no penalty was invoked. Also, general sentiment within the populace (the ones I hang around with at least) was the family should pay him the $2 worth of spent bullet. It's a bit of a half joke, still, people started exploiting the "ouch booboo" suits and law has changed accordingly. Could be a legend, but I doubt it. There were already-hurt people jumping in front of cars on zebras. Good luck proving that. Law was adjusted accordingly (previous law said driver has to slow as to avert any danger - unattainable).

Also, we have a different court system here, you're not judged by some bleeding hearts with zero training. As a side note, in the same spirit, getting hit by a car in a marked passing place lays full blame in all respects to the driver. Getting hit in an unmarked/illegal place reverses the situation so, at least in theory, once you* get out of the hospital you start paying for the fender. Don't know if it was ever applied like this.

It depends on chance though. As worded by you, yes. I'm not sure if the hole there is intentional or not. Let me rephrase: If his chances are 0%, and OUR chances are low, then no. I'm not getting in on the action. I have a threshold, even if not directly numerical. We'll arbitrarily call it 50%. If it drops below that, I'm out. I'll keep exploring other options, though, I might start making calls, drawing attention, etc. I'll just skip the self-rationalization of the whole shebang, but trust me, I have my regrets grounds covered.

Accept, yes. When you cross the street you accept the possibility you'll never make it to the other side. The chances are acceptable when light is green and cars are stopped. Chances are not acceptable when compressed traffic on 5 lanes is zooming 200KPH and you know that if you jump in, your chances in percent of getting out alive are sub-unity and getting out with a running brain and working legs just about null.

Though, this is a theoretical issue. So if your question is, in principle, if his chances are 0 and mine non-zero then no, as a rule I'll stand aside. Fifty percent, I'll think about it.

I have a grasp of percentages. Only in movies 3% chance is an acceptable risk and Picard just barely makes it. In real life, 3% means that if you*, your family and most of your close friends and colleagues all try in a row there's a good chance they all fail.

I have no intention of playing those odds.

*) Bleed from native language. By "you" I mean "one". Not personal.

Again, this is math only. In real life there's always a way to increase that. Just route power to the shields or something. Like running away screaming like nuts hitting all the cars on the way making an incredible racket.

Also, strangers only.

Re: Maemo Morality
 

I don't know where here is, but in the U.S. there is actually many examples of people shot and the shooting being declared legal, but then the shooter getting sued by the family and losing everything.

Looking outside the US, you have popular cases such as Tony Martin who were actually imprisoned for longer than the burglars or thieves for shooting and wounding/killing the robbers. Granted there is controversy over "in the back", but the point still remains.

As far as the rest of your post I can say we mostly agree, it's just we have a different threshold of when to interfere. I don't necessarily need to see a likely chance of success, just a chance of success with a likely chance of not making things worse (worse not including me, but other people.)