Hypothetical moral quandary

[Asta Kask]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

[SiuiS]

Considering even the OP seems to have admitted they were left desiring a better formulation? It's just as much about reacting to the situation as it is that the design of the situation be good for what it's trying to explore.

Oh, I didn't notice the OP said anything. I don't keep track of the generic avatars so well.

Saying that the design doesn't matter is gibberish. The design determines what we're exploring.

No, I'm saying the intention should be considered.

And your argument is one that seeks to further undermine Jormengand's point of making a sacred cow out of thought experiments here.

This is gibberish to me. Rephrase?

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

Pretty much. Saving the people is the right choice if you oppose the villain in order to save people. Killing the villain is the right thing to do if you oppose the villain to oppose the villain. We assume heroes would be heroic, but culturally we've lost sight of what that means. We assume the symptom is the illness, as they say.

With this in mind I should go back through old movies and see what it shows me.

[Coidzor]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

Villains categorically never "just" have a heart attack.

[Asta Kask]

Be bitten by a shark with laser beams attached to its head.

[hamishspence]

Lives in the future should be discounted simply because the future is never certain. The villain could have a heart attack before tomorrow happened.

It may not be certain - but it's predictable - especially at the large scale. That's probably a big part of health policy - you can predict accurately that X% of the population will suffer from Y health issue if you do nothing, and so, you act accordingly.

[Asta Kask]

Yes, but it's not a predictable on a single-villain scale. If we had ten thousand villains with ten thousands Doomsday Devices then... actually, then we'd be screwed. But you get my point - the future is uncertain, so discount future losses over present ones. We all do it and to a certain degree its rational.

[Wardog]

My personal opinion is:

"The most moral action is the one that saves the most lives".

In the original scenario presented, innocent people are going to be killed by the villain, regardless of what the hero does. The most moral response of the hero is whichever one prevents the most killing, which in this case is "stop the villain". As presented, I don't see it as being fundamentally different from "the villain has set up two bombs - one which will kill 10 people and one which will kill 100. You can only disarm one. Which do you chose?"


Now, I think the problem with a lot of "moral dilemma" thought experiments is that they give you the exact results of every action. In the real world you don't normally have this much information, so you have to go by probabilities. (The Trolley Problem suffers the same flaws).

If this was happening for real, you would have to compare the probable effects of the villain escaping against the probable effect of the bomb going off. Will the villain really try to kill other people? Will he succeed? Will you/someone else be able to stop him first? Is the bomb reliable? Will it actually go off if you do nothing? Can you disarm it without setting it off? How powerful is it? Will people be able to escape without your help? All these affect what the outcome of each option will be, and hence what the most moral decision would be. And given the uncertainties, I wouldn't blame the hero for the outcome, whatever they did and whatever they happened.

(With the exception that if they either did something really stupid, or callously ignored the risk of casualties on the grounds that their sole objective was to stop the villain regardless of the cost. And even then, the villain would still share moral responsibility, for setting up the dilemma in the first place).

[Lheticus]

All right...I think I MIGHT have a new scenario that's better than my original. I'm re-testing the original question sans the focus on blame, and added something new based on building off what's already been said here.

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

Is it right to throw the case so that the killing spree doesn't happen, AND if so...how do you stop someone like that?

EDIT: Just thought I'd make clear when I say Miles Edgeworth "as the hero" I mean he's a good guy rather than how he was starting out, not the traditional hero/villain sense.

[Jormengand]

And your argument is one that seeks to further undermine Jormengand's point of making a sacred cow out of thought experiments here.

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

That's the approach of a policy wonk. We're discussing the action of a hero. The hero is supposed to defeat impossible odds.

If you mean "That's the approach of someone who actually cares about real people. We're discussing the action of a protagonist of some kind of weird shonen manga. The protagonist is supposed to try to be really cool above all else even when people's lives are on the line," then I suppose I might agree with you.


Guys, I thought this was a hypothetical moral quandary, not a real heroic quandary. Come on.

[Jay R]

To answer a question about what a hero should do, here is the answer from a hero. The citation is from the second Superman and Spider-Man comic, published in 1981, and written by Jim Shooter:

I can't help thinking about what Doom said - that merely to possess great power is to decide the fate of others!

Here I am "deciding the fate" of two planeloads of people - and, probably, in the next few days, I'll save still more lives!

And yet, by not giving Doom and the Parasite my undivided attention, I may leave myself wide open to an attack --

-- which could leave the world wide open for Doom's mysterious power play!

A dilemma - for philosophers, maybe! To me the answer is clear!

I'll simply do the best I can! I'll answer every call for help that I'm able to, I'll work on stopping Doom in between! --

-- and I'll fit my life as Clark Kent in around the edges!

[hamishspence]

Not every hero is Superman though. It makes sense for him to place Helping The Helpless over Thwarting The Villain. Others might reverse this.

[Asta Kask]

Right. Batman or the Punisher might have different ideas.

No, you can't let the villain get away with this. To do so would be to show everyone how to cheat the system. This is the purpose of revenge. This is why e.g. Israel is still hunting down former Nazi officers, despite the chances of them starting a second holocaust when they're in their 90's. Deterrence. Deploy police to mitigate the causalties, but do not negotiate. The knock-down effects are too strong.

[Crow]

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

Agreed. Totally missing the point.

[Coidzor]

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone.

If you mean "That's the approach of someone who actually cares about real people. We're discussing the action of a protagonist of some kind of weird shonen manga. The protagonist is supposed to try to be really cool above all else even when people's lives are on the line," then I suppose I might agree with you.

We've already had SiuiS(iirc) spend some time on arguing that villains aren't actually people, but instead are symbols after all. If villains are symbols rather than people, then so are heroes, as at the end of the day they're both just tools in stories we tell ourselves and others about the world.

Heroes and Villains don't run around doing that sort of thing except in our stories and the question is intrinsically linked to our stories due to being born of them. Hence reminding the OP about that as an aside.

A bit meta, sure. A bit tangential, sure. That's why it was initially an aside, at least on my part.

Agreed. Totally missing the point.

Arguing that formulation doesn't matter is also missing the point of several things beyond the individual hypothetical. Thankfully it's been clarified that none of the people who appeared to be arguing this were actually intending to argue it.

I still think they're undervaluing proper formulation and re-calibrating the question to better ask what we want to explore here.

Oh, I didn't notice the OP said anything. I don't keep track of the generic avatars so well.

They be a treacherous map of the ocean. Yarr.

No, I'm saying the intention should be considered.

Sure, I just think that it should be better reflected in the quandary and if it isn't, the quandary changed to better reflect it and that exploring how to change the question and the context that lead to the question can be useful and interesting.

This is gibberish to me. Rephrase?

For appearing to ride in to agree with Jormengand, you appeared to just want to argue against their assertion from the opposite direction.

Pretty much. Saving the people is the right choice if you oppose the villain in order to save people. Killing the villain is the right thing to do if you oppose the villain to oppose the villain. We assume heroes would be heroic, but culturally we've lost sight of what that means. We assume the symptom is the illness, as they say.

With this in mind I should go back through old movies and see what it shows me.

Pretty much.

Sounds like a plan.

[Lheticus]

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone.

Oooookay. Methinks this thread is starting to get to a place that could benefit from a few ccs of "calm yo tits".

Sure, I just think that it should be better reflected in the quandary and if it isn't, the quandary changed to better reflect it and that exploring how to change the question and the context that lead to the question can be useful and interesting.

Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

[Bulldog Psion]

Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

I noticed. But now it really is an honest to golly quandary, and I'm trying to puzzle out how to respond to it.

Perhaps your effort to rework it worked too well!

[Crow]

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

If you throw the case, you don't get a second chance. You have to aprehend him on some other charge, and what is to stop him from making the same threat the next time? You MUST convict.

But if you got the boss, you probably have some knowledge of his organization. Police usually know the general location of most organized crime players at any given time, but can't move because of lack of evidence or several other reasons. Criminal cases are long. This gives you time to find the lieutenants, and if you can't move on them, you can still run surveillance on them. Then there is also the possibility that if the boss is convicted a power struggle could ensue within the organization. Who is to say every lieutenant is going to follow through and risk jumping onboard a sinking ship when they could be setting themselves up for a greater role under the new boss, or be the boss themselves?

But in the end, ignoring everything in the paragraph above, it all comes down to one thing. You can't give this guy a get out of jail free card like that. All you do is encourage and embolden others to use the same ploy. Eventually you end up with a judicial system so afraid to convict anybody that the rule of law becomes meaningless.

[Mando Knight]

To ignore a thought experiment by taking a third option is to remove the point of that thought experiment.

To ignore a thought experiment by changing the parameters of that thought experiment is also to ignore the point of that thought experiment.

But the entire point of the thought experiment is "Which of these two options is better" not "How many other ways out can we come up with." No, it's not perfect, but the smartassery of trying to avoid the actual point of the thought experiment isn't actually as clever as you think it is. It doesn't show anything except that you think you're clever.

I disagree. Changing the parameters, or coming up with solutions that beat the question at hand, allows one to explore what's really going on.

The OP's quandary can be reproduced like so: you have the power and choice between stopping a tragedy now or preventing future similar tragedies from occurring (with certainty). Is it moral to prevent the future tragedies at the cost of being forced to allow the present tragedy?

This alone is insufficient for a solution as to the "most moral choice": if the future tragedies are not certain to occur, then one is choosing to not deal with the present out of fear of the future. If the future tragedies are certain, then dealing with the present without regard for the future is reckless. If you are certain to be in the position to make this choice again at the cusp of every other tragedy to come, then the choice is between preventing n tragedies or n-1 tragedies, and defeats the purpose of the thought experiment. If you are not certain to be in such a position, then you essentially must make a choice as to which tragedy you prevent... and if you do not know how many future events you may not be able to prevent, eliminating the cause is the most rational action.

Is the tragedy the hero's fault? No. The hero is at fault only for making a decision under the circumstances he finds himself. The one who placed him in the no-win situation is the one at fault for the tragedy itself. However, if when in a position to do something, the hero chooses to do nothing, he is responsible for the consequences of his inaction.

[SiuiS]

If you think pointing out that the formulation of a problem is important to asking the question that one actually wants to ask and conveying one's intent is "smartassery," Jormengand, you're going to go through life resembling your avatar's emotional state more than is probably good for anyone.

There is also a thing called analysis paralysis, where you spend so much time thinking nothing gets done. Also, there's a point of over saturation where if you think about something enough, you can wrap you head around it, and it gets to a point where nothing amtters and everything is equal, even though they shouldn't be. So it's a fine balance, to strike. I do believe in this instance you were right though.

We've already had SiuiS(iirc) spend some time on arguing that villains aren't actually people, but instead are symbols after all. If villains are symbols rather than people, then so are heroes, as at the end of the day they're both just tools in stories we tell ourselves and others about the world.

Heroes and Villains don't run around doing that sort of thing except in our stories and the question is intrinsically linked to our stories due to being born of them. Hence reminding the OP about that as an aside.

The difference is you rarely POV the villain. The aren't equal enough to say "they're both just symbols".

Arguing that formulation doesn't matter is also missing the point of several things beyond the individual hypothetical. Thankfully it's been clarified that none of the people who appeared to be arguing this were actually intending to argue it.

I still think they're undervaluing proper formulation and re-calibrating the question to better ask what we want to explore here.

My intention was to say that there is an actual technique I can never recall the name of, Socratic somethingorother, that is basically a discourse such as this wherein the rules are you accept these concepts to be true and work with them. I took what I could see of Jor's position to be defending buy in, because sometimes you slay dragons to dissect the underlying symbols and values of rampage and princess-as-commodity and kingdom morality and morale they demonstrate... And sometimes you slay dragons because that's the game and you work with it.

For appearing to ride in to agree with Jormengand, you appeared to just want to argue against their assertion from the opposite direction.

Hmm. I don't see it. But okay, I can understand how appearances shape things.

Oooookay. Methinks this thread is starting to get to a place that could benefit from a few ccs of "calm yo tits".

Ha!

Um...did literally nobody notice I DID attempt to change the quandary a few posts back? Because that's what it looks like right now.

Unfortunately, there's too much baggage to get an easy answer. You need to find an example that isn't connected enough to people's lives that tehy bring bias with them. Trials have rules and visceral connotations, such as no double jeopardy (automatically mkaing it different than most other moral questions), etc.

Also, we are self-indulgent and still enjoying answering what we think you meant. What you actually meant can wait.

If you throw the case, you don't get a second chance. You have to aprehend him on some other charge, and what is to stop him from making the same threat the next time? You MUST convict.

But if you got the boss, you probably have some knowledge of his organization. Police usually know the general location of most organized crime players at any given time, but can't move because of lack of evidence or several other reasons. Criminal cases are long. This gives you time to find the lieutenants, and if you can't move on them, you can still run surveillance on them. Then there is also the possibility that if the boss is convicted a power struggle could ensue within the organization. Who is to say every lieutenant is going to follow through and risk jumping onboard a sinking ship when they could be setting themselves up for a greater role under the new boss, or be the boss themselves?

But in the end, ignoring everything in the paragraph above, it all comes down to one thing. You can't give this guy a get out of jail free card like that. All you do is encourage and embolden others to use the same ploy. Eventually you end up with a judicial system so afraid to convict anybody that the rule of law becomes meaningless.

See? Baggage.

Being a juror or prosecutor or whatever does not put you in the same position as if you were a hero. Ironically, being a criminal does that. Only criminals can guarantee their decisions hold the lives of others in the balance. Because unlike a good guy, a criminal can just murder people; if he deals fairly with them that's a choice he made.

[Rodin]

I find it interesting that there's a distinction between "what would save the most lives" and "what a hero would do". A hero might well go to save the people, but it would be an instinctual response - saving people is what he does, and with no time to do a carefully plotted risk-analysis of the consequences of letting the villain go the gut reaction is save who you can now. That doesn't necessarily make it the right decision or even the most heroic - it's just the response that type of person would tend to make. There's plenty of stories that have the hero angsting over making the hard choice, to do the lesser evil and have that weighing on their conscience. And what makes it even more interesting is that you can oh-so-easily flip over into villainy this way - tyranny for the good of the people.

[SiuiS]

I find it interesting that there's a distinction between "what would save the most lives" and "what a hero would do". A hero might well go to save the people, but it would be an instinctual response - saving people is what he does, and with no time to do a carefully plotted risk-analysis of the consequences of letting the villain go the gut reaction is save who you can now. That doesn't necessarily make it the right decision or even the most heroic - it's just the response that type of person would tend to make. There's plenty of stories that have the hero angsting over making the hard choice, to do the lesser evil and have that weighing on their conscience. And what makes it even more interesting is that you can oh-so-easily flip over into villainy this way - tyranny for the good of the people.

It's a holdover. We understand at a visceral level that prototypical heroes aren't good people; they are Great. Greek heroes for example, are often jackasses. They aren't heroes in the "we should all be this way" sense, they are heroes in the "I wish that when this guy cut me off I could flip his car over by hand to show him who's boss" way.

But we learn that goodness and rightness lead to situations that lead to heroism. Heroic knights are heroic Because (like heroes) they are greater than normal men; harder, stronger, sterner, unflinching. But they demonstrate this by doing the right thing – fighting enemy armies to save maidens, fighting dragons, ending tyranny. Nobody acknowledges the inherent selfishness of these actions (getting a girl, being the bigger bully, getting rich and also a girl).

Heroes and how to be a hero are very different. The weird crossing of the streams generates emergent properties fun to explore.

[2xMachina]

I've watched too much shows and read too much books on this case.

Without regret, I would catch the villain 1st, and rescue 2nd. Does that make me an anti-hero? Probably? Will it be give more useful, yes, based on my experience.

The villain will kill many more as celebration of getting free. The hostages may be fake (no actual bomb). The hostages will probably die anyway, when the bomb goes off the second you disarm it. The disarming device is booby trapped to kill the hero when he touches it.

[Lheticus]

Unfortunately, there's too much baggage to get an easy answer. You need to find an example that isn't connected enough to people's lives that tehy bring bias with them. Trials have rules and visceral connotations, such as no double jeopardy (automatically mkaing it different than most other moral questions), etc.

Also, we are self-indulgent and still enjoying answering what we think you meant. What you actually meant can wait.



See? Baggage.

Being a juror or prosecutor or whatever does not put you in the same position as if you were a hero. Ironically, being a criminal does that. Only criminals can guarantee their decisions hold the lives of others in the balance. Because unlike a good guy, a criminal can just murder people; if he deals fairly with them that's a choice he made.

That...is a REALLY good point. a really really good point! 2,000 YES points to you sir, and I'll try and rejigger things yet again. Might take me a while.

[Frozen_Feet]

All right...I think I MIGHT have a new scenario that's better than my original. I'm re-testing the original question sans the focus on blame, and added something new based on building off what's already been said here.

Let's ignore Ace Attorney series canon so I can use a name or two as stand-ins. Miles Edgeworth (as the hero) is prosecuting a case against a murderer--not just any murderer, a major organized crime leader. Now, let's say for the sake of this scenario that there is definitely enough evidence to get this guy the chair, but several of his lieutenants are still free, and have standing orders to go on a killing spree if the boss is ever convicted--and the boss makes sure that Edgeworth and others involved in the case are made aware of this.

Is it right to throw the case so that the killing spree doesn't happen, AND if so...how do you stop someone like that?

This bad situation is alleviated by the fact that there are many intermediate steps between prosecution and conviction. So stalling the trial while keeping the mob boss on pre-trial detention gives a chance to capture the lieutenants. Depending on how many lieutenants there are, how much resources we have to use for their capture and how long we can stall, we would ideally be able to rise above marginal utility of convicting the mob boss. In other words: reach a situation where convicting the mob boss will save more lives than will be lost when the remaining lieutenants go on a spree.

What I'm saying is: both letting the boss go and convicting him are, in this case, bad options. You let him go, and he continues his reign of terror; you convict him, his underlings continue his reign of terror for him. If you have to choose between these two options, it's a No-Win situation. So the right thing to do is actually ask the question you posed on the end, "how de we stop someone like this?", and come up with at least one plan that has a chance for better outcome.

[2xMachina]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

[Bulldog Psion]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

Send him to the chair. Anything else, and you might as well kneel and knock your forehead on the ground in front of him, and acknowledge him to be your lord and master. Then let the mayhem fall where it may.

[Mando Knight]

Give a time pressure then. The hero is informed that either the mob boss gets released today, or mass violence in response to any other results (even a 1 hour delay).

And today is the verdict, and the hero is the judge who will decide what happens.

So, do the job that is given to you, and the crime syndicate will blame you for its illegal retaliatory actions. Don't do your job, and not only have you not done your job, you're allowing the syndicate to proceed unimpeded.

One of these things will probably get you indicted.

[SiuiS]

That...is a REALLY good point. a really really good point! 2,000 YES points to you sir, and I'll try and rejigger things yet again. Might take me a while.

Ma'am, s'il vous plaît.
And dispense with the question. The question will allow people to infer the principle you want to discuss. Just ask about the principle directly. What are you trying to get at? You won't pollute your sample at this point because they're already polluted.

So, do the job that is given to you, and the crime syndicate will blame you for its illegal retaliatory actions. Don't do your job, and not only have you not done your job, you're allowing the syndicate to proceed unimpeded.

One of these things will probably get you indicted.

Indictment isn't moral rebuke. The law is amoral. It has to be; is important to delineate which side of the road to drive on and what color road signs should be, but those aren't moral at all, unless you're reaching.

[gooddragon1]

I think this might be frowned upon, but since it doesn't have anything to do with the Giant's works or a widespread social issue, I give it a good chance it won't be.

Say you have a villain and a hero. The hero confronts the villain, but the villain tells him he just activated a bomb that will go off in a crowded place and surely kill dozens of people, but in a room on the other side of the lair, there's a deactivation mechanism that the hero would easily be able to reach in time even with mooks in his way--but this would allow the villain to escape. The hero responds at first by saying he's not going to allow the villain to escape, because he'll just keep killing and generally doing evil things if he stops the bomb here. The VILLAIN then says: "Well...are you REALLY willing to let people die just to stop me?"

The quandary is this: Say the hero says basically he WILL still stop him and refuse to go after the bomb instead. On whose hands is the blood of the people killed by the bomb? Personally, I'd say the villain full stop--he's the one that's willing to kill just to get what he wants or save his own neck. If he didn't put people in danger, they wouldn't NEED to be saved. However, judging by a LOT of instances in fiction where this sort of scenario actually plays out, a lot of fiction heroes seem to think the opposite is true. Thoughts, any/everyone?

Firstly:
It's a greater good scenario. I'd execute the villain and then attempt to save the people if I believed I could. It's unfortunate that they'll die but too many people would die and suffer if he got away.

Secondly:
The blood is not on the hands of the hero because he did his best to save as many lives as possible. If he allowed them to die because of laziness or in some way due to a deliberate lack of effort that was very reasonable then it is partially on his hands. So as long as you do the best you can, then you bear none of the guilt. At least in my opinion.

[Jay R]

Indictment isn't moral rebuke. The law is amoral. It has to be; is important to delineate which side of the road to drive on and what color road signs should be, but those aren't moral at all, unless you're reaching.

Some laws are simply requirements that we all do the same arbitrary thing, like the color of road signs or which side of the street to drive on. But a mob boss isn't being indicted for painting road signs the wrong color, but for bank robbery, murder, extortion, etc. These are definitely based on moral principles.