Philosophical Discussion 1: The Lifeboat

[Tom_Violence]

From Wikipedia
Subjectivity - refers to the property of perceptions, arguments, and the language terms use to communicate such, as being based in a subject point of view, and hence influenced in accordance with a particular bias.

Either way you look at it or how you want to word it, they are basically the same thing. Situational conditions. Morals ARE completely and utterly an individual thing. Ethics apply to society as a whole. They ARE different despite the similarities. Until you figure out how to cast Dominate Person on somebody there is no way to control their individual set of morals. You refuse to believe it for some reason.

As far as your claim that all responses should be the same response? What? Where do you get that from? The point of the post is to say what you would do and why you think it's the right thing to do. You're just quibbling over definitions at this point. Sure we both agree on the point of a person that could boil a baby needs boiled themselves. Even though we agree on this we may disagree morally on many other scenarios in which we both feel we have a justified right answer for. There is no way to avoid that. It doesn't matter that you don't agree it should be up to individuals but it is. That isn't going to change. Sisqui has posted recently seeming to understand that just fine.



Morals != Ethics

I'm aware of the use of the term 'morals' to apply to an individual's particular code of conduct. I've been talking about 'morality', which identifies with 'ethics' as you're using it.

But that was never what this was about. This was about situations in which the end doesn't justify the means. Apparently though you were concentrating only one situations in which the end justifies the means solely for the individual concerned - i.e. a strong subjectivist position. (Although a situation has occured to me where even for the individual it might not all add up - in hindsight someone may feel regret, even immediately after having to make a tough decision someone may decide they got it wrong.) Your stance still seems confused to me. "It doesn't matter that you don't agree it should be up to individuals but it is." What is? Their own personal 'morals'? Well, I guess there's no denying that - someone's mind is their own. I just like to have the ability to disagree with someone for boiling babies, and I like to have an actual reason for doing so. I'm still very curious as to why you think there should be no way of externally justifying an ethical decision.

"As far as your claim that all responses should be the same response? What? Where do you get that from?" Early you stated: "Ethics define right or wrong for a given situation. Guess what, that means it's subjective to situation by definition.", as if this was meant to undermine a point of mine. I merely showed that in order for one to be able to react differently to different situations this would, of course, have to be the case.

I guess the bottom line is: is this a discussion about personal opinions, or a discussion about the right thing to do in a given situation? Because if its about personal opinions then if Person A says "I think we should do X", and Person B says "I think we should do Y", there's no actual disagreement there.

Truely, I am in awe of your wisdom. What with your ability to look down your nose at people.

Thank you. It has been no small task to perfect such a skill.

[KoDT69]

Apparently though you were concentrating only one situations in which the end justifies the means solely for the individual concerned - i.e. a strong subjectivist position.

My point is that when you make a decision in your mind, you decide that there is one right answer and do what it takes to make it happen. This does verify that to you the ends justify the means. Killing someone is bad, but doing so for survival only is not necessarily bad. You can agree or disagree, but to the person that kills another for survival they mentally justified it to themselves somehow before doing so.

Your stance still seems confused to me.

Not really. You seem to be the only one that doesn't understand it.

I just like to have the ability to disagree with someone for boiling babies, and I like to have an actual reason for doing so. I'm still very curious as to why you think there should be no way of externally justifying an ethical decision.

I guess the bottom line is: is this a discussion about personal opinions, or a discussion about the right thing to do in a given situation? Because if its about personal opinions then if Person A says "I think we should do X", and Person B says "I think we should do Y", there's no actual disagreement there.

You have the right to agree or disagree with anything. You have already admitted that morals are completely up to the individual. This thread IS about your personal morals and opinions of the given scenario. The problem here is that you are trying to argue for an external justification, but that's not the point of this thread. It's about personal choice. I assume you are in college and took a philosophy class from your former statement:

This is more along the right lines. And these criteria very much do exist. The question then becomes 'which criteria are more relevant/consistent/rational etc.?' These are just some of the things that we do in moral philosophy.

It seems to me that you are trying to impose your opinion of which criteria to base it on. Taking that class doesn't make a person an expert or necessarily more educated than another on a subject, especially this kind. The fact that matters is that the ends justify the means in the eyes of the person making a decision. Your agreement or disagreement with their percetion is completely irrelevant. this thread is about each individuals moral choice and thier logic that backs it up.

[Tom_Violence]

This thread IS about your personal morals and opinions of the given scenario. The problem here is that you are trying to argue for an external justification, but that's not the point of this thread. It's about personal choice.

What would you do?

Is that the right thing to do?

What is the right thing to do?


((I must stress that you not overanalyze this-do not look at the logic of the events leading up to the situation, nor anything pertaining to saving all three people even if it is in vain, etc. etc. This is supposed to be a moral/ethical discussion-emphasis being on the choice and rationale therein. Please use it as such. Thank you.))

From the starting post, this thread was intended to me about more than just simple personal morals. It appears that the initial aim was to discuss not only which choices you would make, but why you think those choices are the right ones. I understand that you believe that morals (at least. Ethics? Morality?) exist in the eye of the beholder. I was interested in why. For me, someone's morals should not only be based on their gut feelings, but also on logic and rationality.

But anyway, the end doesn't always justify the means.

[KoDT69]

Well I missed the ethical part of the OP, so I stand corrected on that matter.

I agree that personal morals should also be based on your logic and rationality, but each person has different logic and rationality. That's all. I don't see any other way for any one person's morals to be anything but personal choice and perception.

When I make a decision, I do whatever necessary to make it happen. In my mind, those necessary tasks completed to reach the goal are justified in my own mind, logic, and rationality. My ends justify my means. Of course I would consider myself a Chaotic/Lawful Good Paladin of Freedom type of guy, a Crusader if you will. A lot of my family is not necessarily the same morally as I am but it's their choice. On that note, their choice and opinions do not persuade me to alter my own morals, but I'm also very hard-headed.

[Tom_Violence]

Well I missed the ethical part of the OP, so I stand corrected on that matter.

I agree that personal morals should also be based on your logic and rationality, but each person has different logic and rationality. That's all. I don't see any other way for any one person's morals to be anything but personal choice and perception.

When I make a decision, I do whatever necessary to make it happen. In my mind, those necessary tasks completed to reach the goal are justified in my own mind, logic, and rationality. My ends justify my means. Of course I would consider myself a Chaotic/Lawful Good Paladin of Freedom type of guy, a Crusader if you will. A lot of my family is not necessarily the same morally as I am but it's their choice. On that note, their choice and opinions do not persuade me to alter my own morals, but I'm also very hard-headed.

Hehe, hard-headed you say? Never would've guessed. Dare say I may be a touch guilty there too.

As for basing things on logic, there's no denying that everyone acts slightly different and has a slightly different view of the world. But their decisions should be based on a logic that could be explained to someone else, I think. People do think differently but Logic, like Mathematics, is hopefully something that there can be a consensus on. Even something as simple as 'torture is wrong because it causes pain and suffering' has a logic to it that (most) people can understand. I guess my problem with subjectivism for me is that nothing needs a justification, so could someone could say 'torture is fun and a good thing', and you couldn't disagree with them. You could lock them up, but on what basis? You could condemn them, but your only justification for doing that would be that your opinion is different from their's. Oddly enough it is this imposing that I've noticed alot of subjectivists hate to go near.

[KoDT69]

I guess my problem with subjectivism for me is that nothing needs a justification, so could someone could say 'torture is fun and a good thing', and you couldn't disagree with them. You could lock them up, but on what basis? You could condemn them, but your only justification for doing that would be that your opinion is different from their's. Oddly enough it is this imposing that I've noticed alot of subjectivists hate to go near.

You have the right to disagree with a looney torture freak, because I know I would not find that stuff morally right. In this case, the subjective base is the law. You can like to torture people and feel justified, but according to the government's laws, you can be locked up for it (OK Singapore may be different ).

On a semi-tangent: Why is it against the law to punish a certified lunatic with the death penalty "because they are too crazy to understand why they are being killed"????
Even I think that f you have a homicidal maniac, they should be expunged ASAP. Who knows how much collateral damage they could cause... Does that make me evil? I don't think so. The basis is that I know for a fact they will kill at least one inocent person and possibly more or do a lot of other vile things also.

[Sisqui]

To be fair, I don't think that this is quite that argument, or at least KoDT has simplified it up somewhat.

Oh, really? :

Have it your way if you insist, but I still rather not go with an approach to morals that advocates boiling babies as much as it does feeding the starving. And if someone tried to justify their baby boiling habits by telling me that their decision was based on literally nothing more than how they felt at the time, I'd want them boiled too. Why should morals be simply a matter of personal inclination?

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems like a failing of logic to me. You've gone from 'the vast majority of people would disagree' to 'it is wrong', and this is invalid.

Also, since my posts seem to be unclear or a source of debate in and of themselves, let me see if I can clarify some of what I meant:

When I say morality, I am refering to an individual's perception of what is right and wrong. As this is a perception, yes, it is entirely relative. A person can have morals that are absolutely abhorrent to those of other people. That does not make a person immoral. Only violating one of their own personal morals can make them immoral- i.e. committing an act which they believe is wrong and for which they feel guilty.

When I refer to ethics, I am refering to the system of morals an individual or a group possesses- the larger framework in which an individual moral lies such as : Killing is wrong (ethic) therefore: 1)abortion is wrong (moral) 2)the death penalty is wrong (moral). 3)mercy killing is wrong (moral). (Warning! This was just an example, not an endorsement or condemnation of this p.o.v.) I also usually am referring to this as it applies to groups or society in general. Also, since these groups are made up of individuals with relative morals and ethical systems, so too are the morals and ethics of the groups. Societies' systems of ethics are relative because, quite frankly, they are made up of nothing more than the consensus of the individuals within a group- they are opinion polls.

When I refer to Right/Wrong or Good/Evil (in caps) then I am referring to an objective morality that exists independently of human perception- one that is what it is without regard to whether or not humans agree with or acknowledge it. Most people would call this concept the will of god or some such thing.

So, to sum up, if I say a person is immoral, then I mean they have violated their own personal morals, not that they have violated someone else's. If I say they are unethical, then I mean that they either hold a view inconsistent with their larger system of morality (say, as in the above example, if they believed that the death penalty was ok. They would be holding a moral principal that violated their overall framework but one which they would not give up merely to make it fit in with that framework) or that their own individual morality or sense of personal ethics puts them in direct conflict with the ethics of the group in which they are associating (same as above only the moral was their own and the ethics in question belonged to the group).

So, the long, loooong answer to your question Tom_Violence, is that I meant the two people I called ethical made the right (lower case r) choice morally and ethically from the standpoint of both themselves as individuals and the group. The third person made the right (lower case r) moral and ethical choice because his choice did not conflict with his own sense of morality. But he was wrong (again, lowercase w) from the standpoint of ethics in the group sense because almost all humans would say that his choices were against their personal code. His actions violated the group's (presumably humanity at large) definition of what constitutes ethical behavior. As to whether any of the three individuals committed an act that was Right or Wrong (upper case) is not open to debate or interpretation. If a rigid, objective morality exists, then those actions are judged Good/Evil by that standard. Where they fell on any human's or group's relative scale of morality and ethics would be irrelevant.

I hope I have now made what I was trying to say as clear as mud

[squidthingy]

From what I've seen the most popular reaction is to throw one overboard, I have also seen alot of these people say they would check to see which one is in better condition and has a better chance of survival, or that if there was a concious person on the boat there would be more of a chance to save the one person. I think that is twisting the question, I found it very simple, one will die and two will live, you have to make that choice right away with no time to check injurys or i.d's to deterine which one has a better chance or which one is more important to society, it was supposed to to based entirely on ethics and morals. I saw the question more as: "Would you knowenly kill someone to save your own life, or would you sacrifice your self to save said person", you can basically eliminate one unconcious from the analasis because either way (not includeing all 3 dying which unless someone is pure evil and would sacrifice themselves to kill 2 strangers no one would do) one unconcious person will live so it's either you or him

I've also seen alot of "kill both" or other not related post involving zombies or something, I found the latter incredably annoying considering with the the number of threads there are for non-serious stuff and other random banter(hmm), as for the former I have only seen one in which they explain why (to dramatically improve his own chance of survival and they even gave a counter answer if it didn't improve their survival) the rest are either people that would commit a murder for no reason whatsoever or they were not being serious which makes their posts nothing more than spam

[Tom_Violence]

Oh, really? :


----------------------------------------------------------------------



Also, since my posts seem to be unclear or a source of debate in and of themselves, let me see if I can clarify some of what I meant:

When I say morality, I am refering to an individual's perception of what is right and wrong. As this is a perception, yes, it is entirely relative. A person can have morals that are absolutely abhorrent to those of other people. That does not make a person immoral. Only violating one of their own personal morals can make them immoral- i.e. committing an act which they believe is wrong and for which they feel guilty.

When I refer to ethics, I am refering to the system of morals an individual or a group possesses- the larger framework in which an individual moral lies such as : Killing is wrong (ethic) therefore: 1)abortion is wrong (moral) 2)the death penalty is wrong (moral). 3)mercy killing is wrong (moral). (Warning! This was just an example, not an endorsement or condemnation of this p.o.v.) I also usually am referring to this as it applies to groups or society in general. Also, since these groups are made up of individuals with relative morals and ethical systems, so too are the morals and ethics of the groups. Societies' systems of ethics are relative because, quite frankly, they are made up of nothing more than the consensus of the individuals within a group- they are opinion polls.

When I refer to Right/Wrong or Good/Evil (in caps) then I am referring to an objective morality that exists independently of human perception- one that is what it is without regard to whether or not humans agree with or acknowledge it. Most people would call this concept the will of god or some such thing.

So, to sum up, if I say a person is immoral, then I mean they have violated their own personal morals, not that they have violated someone else's. If I say they are unethical, then I mean that they either hold a view inconsistent with their larger system of morality (say, as in the above example, if they believed that the death penalty was ok. They would be holding a moral principal that violated their overall framework but one which they would not give up merely to make it fit in with that framework) or that their own individual morality or sense of personal ethics puts them in direct conflict with the ethics of the group in which they are associating (same as above only the moral was their own and the ethics in question belonged to the group).

So, the long, loooong answer to your question Tom_Violence, is that I meant the two people I called ethical made the right (lower case r) choice morally and ethically from the standpoint of both themselves as individuals and the group. The third person made the right (lower case r) moral and ethical choice because his choice did not conflict with his own sense of morality. But he was wrong (again, lowercase w) from the standpoint of ethics in the group sense because almost all humans would say that his choices were against their personal code. His actions violated the group's (presumably humanity at large) definition of what constitutes ethical behavior. As to whether any of the three individuals committed an act that was Right or Wrong (upper case) is not open to debate or interpretation. If a rigid, objective morality exists, then those actions are judged Good/Evil by that standard. Where they fell on any human's or group's relative scale of morality and ethics would be irrelevant.

I hope I have now made what I was trying to say as clear as mud

I think a simple 'phew' is just about all one can say in response to that. You really should come with a legend.

You have the right to disagree with a looney torture freak, because I know I would not find that stuff morally right. In this case, the subjective base is the law. You can like to torture people and feel justified, but according to the government's laws, you can be locked up for it (OK Singapore may be different ).

On a semi-tangent: Why is it against the law to punish a certified lunatic with the death penalty "because they are too crazy to understand why they are being killed"????
Even I think that f you have a homicidal maniac, they should be expunged ASAP. Who knows how much collateral damage they could cause... Does that make me evil? I don't think so. The basis is that I know for a fact they will kill at least one inocent person and possibly more or do a lot of other vile things also.

I think for a lot of people avoidance of the death penalty is cos of the whole Sanctity of (Human) Life dealy (which just so happens to be something that I wholeheartedly disagree with as it seems illogical and contradictory), so for some people intentionally taking a life is wrong regardless. Heh, I guess it would be one of those situations where the end would never justify the means if you held that, cos no matter how many lives you save by killing the lunatic you've still done something absolutely prohibited. I think the arguments stack up well against the SoL principle, though admittedly in this case I'm not too well versed on punishment debates. Also, I'm one of those people that is lucky to go a week without reading some horrible story that leaves me baying for blood.

I've also seen alot of "kill both" or other not related post involving zombies or something, I found the latter incredably annoying considering with the the number of threads there are for non-serious stuff and other random banter(hmm), as for the former I have only seen one in which they explain why (to dramatically improve his own chance of survival and they even gave a counter answer if it didn't improve their survival) the rest are either people that would commit a murder for no reason whatsoever or they were not being serious which makes their posts nothing more than spam

Agreed.

[Sisqui]

I think a simple 'phew' is just about all one can say in response to that. You really should come with a legend.

I don't know if that was a compliment, but it is now!

EDIT: Now that I think of it, I don't need a legend, I need a warning label:

WARNING! EXCESSIVE VERBIAGE AHEAD!

[landadmiral]

Generally speaking of Moral Hierarchy:
self preservation > others' preservation

I'm dumping one of the unconscience bodies overboard.


...sure you can argue the Moral Hierarchy of:
self sacrifice > self preservation

but i don't see it applying in a case where there are 2 unresponsive stiffs that can't debate thier self preservation being greater than mine.

[averagejoe]

Oh, really?

Yes, really.

I meant more in the sense that the relativist standpoint says something more along the lines of, "Yes, this is how our morals are, but there's no reason it necessarily has to be this way, it just happened to be the way we developed." Although, to be fair, I haven't been paying a lot of attention, as I have little interest in this tangent, and find it to be quite beside the point.

[Sisqui]

Yes, really.

I meant more in the sense that the relativist standpoint says something more along the lines of, "Yes, this is how our morals are, but there's no reason it necessarily has to be this way, it just happened to be the way we developed."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_relativism

I think the debating of the morality of boiling babies applies here... But, as you say:

Although, to be fair, I haven't been paying a lot of attention, as I have little interest in this tangent, and find it to be quite beside the point.

And yet, you post about it! So double
And to boot!

[averagejoe]

And yet, you post about it! So double
And to boot!

Well, what about your... shut up.