To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Abortion, euthanasia, genetic engineering, Just War theory and other such hot topics.

Moderators: AMod, iMod

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by ken » Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:24 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:36 am
ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 1:45 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sat Jul 22, 2017 12:15 am
I don't think the example using a terrorist is a very good one or very particularly provoking. Obviously I would rather kill the man with the bomb to save the many.

Usually, these sorts of ethical questions involve killing someone who is innocent to save others.
Was an actual 'terrorist', in the general usage of the word, used in the example? The person holding the bomb could after all be trying to kill many human beings who had killed the innocent child of the one holding the bomb.

As I said earlier until ALL of the different variables and/or scenarios are fully explained, then how would any person know exactly what they would do?

Also, if a 'terrorist' is defined as killing many others, as it is defined in the opening post, then that would mean the "defense" forces of countries that have killed many others ARE terrorists.
I thought terrorist because that's what it sounds like what you have in mind when you say 'a man with a bomb' trying to blow up others.
What sounds like to Me is obviously different to what sounds like to you. I hear (see) words and search for the truth of the matter BEFORE I make assumptions.

I was just showing how there could be other reasons WHY a human being is holding a bomb and wanting to kill many others, which of course would then alter your decision about what to do. Not all things are, how they appear to be on first glance.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:36 am
That doesn't usually describe self-defense.
I never used self-defense in relation to the example. I was just adding another perspective onto this matter.
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:36 am
Normally I'd say kill the bomber, but if we're talking about every conceivable possible and not every practical possible then things are different.
Can you not see the practical possibility of one person wanting to kill the many, who killed the innocent child of that one person? Surely you can see that as a practical possibility?

What about if a group of human beings killed your very young absolutely innocent child, could there be a practical possibilty that you might want to kill those human beings with a bomb? If so, then you might have some empathy for the person in the same situation who is labelled "bomber", and then you might not be so hasty in your decision to kill the "bomber".

ALL information is needed before you can make a truly informed, thus right, decision.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:10 am

ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:24 am
Can you not see the practical possibility of one person wanting to kill the many, who killed the innocent child of that one person? Surely you can see that as a practical possibility?

What about if a group of human beings killed your very young absolutely innocent child, could there be a practical possibilty that you might want to kill those human beings with a bomb? If so, then you might have some empathy for the person in the same situation who is labelled "bomber", and then you might not be so hasty in your decision to kill the "bomber".
My mind wouldn't practically jump to a liam neeson-eqsue revenge story if I saw someone using a bomb to try and blow other people up, no.

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by ken » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:15 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:10 am
ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:24 am
Can you not see the practical possibility of one person wanting to kill the many, who killed the innocent child of that one person? Surely you can see that as a practical possibility?

What about if a group of human beings killed your very young absolutely innocent child, could there be a practical possibilty that you might want to kill those human beings with a bomb? If so, then you might have some empathy for the person in the same situation who is labelled "bomber", and then you might not be so hasty in your decision to kill the "bomber".
My mind wouldn't practically jump to a liam neeson-eqsue revenge story if I saw someone using a bomb to try and blow other people up, no.
My whole point I was making, as you have seemed to have missed it, is it is better NOT to jump to any story without ALL the facts.

User avatar
Sir-Sister-of-Suck
Posts: 939
Joined: Fri Jul 21, 2017 4:09 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by Sir-Sister-of-Suck » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:25 am

ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:15 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:10 am
ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 3:24 am
Can you not see the practical possibility of one person wanting to kill the many, who killed the innocent child of that one person? Surely you can see that as a practical possibility?

What about if a group of human beings killed your very young absolutely innocent child, could there be a practical possibilty that you might want to kill those human beings with a bomb? If so, then you might have some empathy for the person in the same situation who is labelled "bomber", and then you might not be so hasty in your decision to kill the "bomber".
My mind wouldn't practically jump to a liam neeson-eqsue revenge story if I saw someone using a bomb to try and blow other people up, no.
My whole point I was making, as you have seemed to have missed it, is it is better NOT to jump to any story without ALL the facts.
I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing to follow up on. We usually don't have the 'all the facts' when we hear about these terrorist attacks on the news. Should we not judge them without full context?

ken
Posts: 2075
Joined: Mon May 09, 2016 4:14 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by ken » Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:56 am

Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:25 am
ken wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:15 am
Sir-Sister-of-Suck wrote:
Sun Jul 23, 2017 4:10 am

My mind wouldn't practically jump to a liam neeson-eqsue revenge story if I saw someone using a bomb to try and blow other people up, no.
My whole point I was making, as you have seemed to have missed it, is it is better NOT to jump to any story without ALL the facts.
I don't know if that's necessarily a good thing to follow up on. We usually don't have the 'all the facts' when we hear about these terrorist attacks on the news. Should we not judge them without full context?
You can do whatever you like to do, if you want to judges others then go ahead. You can also believe whatever you want to believe, on the news, or anywhere else for that matter. But unlike you I certainly do not judge without full context.

Even when full context knowledge is gained, I still found there is no need to judge as understanding, itself, is gained. ALL human beings think and behave, and misbehave, because of past experiences, so I am certainly in no position to judge at all.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by Noax » Sun Jul 23, 2017 2:14 pm

Why has nobody mention "trolley problem" which doesn't have the needless complication of shooting, which feels so murdery?

The self-driving car is a good example of the trolley problem for the auto industry. Such cars will not be perfect and will (and have) cause deaths. Those deaths are homicides on the part of the auto industry for not making their product perfect. On the other hand, if they do nothing, thousands more lives are lost because people are worse drivers than the automatic cars, but the weight of the responsibility falls somewhat more on the car operator and less on the manufacturer.
prof wrote:
Fri Jul 21, 2017 7:21 am
I agree, after reflecting upon it, with Kant who wrote that anyone who - with even very-slight premeditation - damages another human being is a criminal. Shooting someone with intent to kill is - in U.S. legal circles - First-degree Murder.
This would be attempted murder, not necessarily first degree, and not even unconditionally. So if Kant actually said it that way, there exist plenty of examples to counter the assertion. My surgeon stabbed me with a knife, premeditated. Not a criminal.

If the death takes place, it is at least 3rd degree, again not unconditionally. The subject of this thread is more about those conditions under which the act is not murder.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by prof » Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:33 am

My point in posting this thread is to remind us all that if one deep and complex organism kills another deep and complex organism, the former, the killer, is not being ethical.

Ethics, as I understand the findings and conclusions of the new science, by definition and observation, Ethics informs us that each individual is an uncountable bundle of value; not to be defiled. If you want to be ethical you will not kill another member of your species.

One of the first theorems derived reads: An ethical individual will not inflict harm. Lemma One is: Do no harm!

Any questions?

See: A UNIFIED THEORY OF ETHICS (January 2010)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/A%20UNI ... ETHICS.pdf

See: BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach (2014)
http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

See: HOW TO LIVE SUCCESSFULLY: New knowledge in human relations (2017) - https://www.amazon.com/LIVING-SUCCESSFU ... B01NBKS42C

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by fooloso4 » Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:54 am

prof:
My point in posting this thread is to remind us all that if one deep and complex organism kills another deep and complex organism, the former, the killer, is not being ethical.
That is not a reminder it is the assertion of an opinion. Calling it a "new science" does not make your opinion more than your opinion.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by Dubious » Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:12 am

prof wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:33 am
Ethics, as I understand the findings and conclusions of the new science, by definition and observation, Ethics informs us that each individual is an uncountable bundle of value; not to be defiled. If you want to be ethical you will not kill another member of your species.
...by what criteria is "each individual an uncountable bundle of value"; what new science (that sounds bogus) proclaims that?
If you want to be ethical you will not kill another member of your species.
Is it only OUR species? Is there no infringement of ethics if we kill members of other species or is that determination beyond the scope of the New Science? Is ethics ONLY US or does it include others who inhabit the planet along with us??

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by prof » Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:39 am

fooloso4 wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 2:54 am
prof:
My point in posting this thread is to remind us all that if one deep and complex organism kills another deep and complex organism, the former, the killer, is not being ethical.
That is not a reminder it is the assertion of an opinion. ...
Let me get this straight: As a result of your reflection, analysis, or other philosophical work, is it your view, foolso4, that it is ethical for you to kill another person?

If so, by what logical process did you arrive at this conclusion? In other words, justify your position by giving the good reasons behind it.

{After all, I do this in the works cited in that recent post. Obviously the critic hasn't bothered to do his homework, or he wouldn't have to wonder about whether a scientific theory is "mere opinion."}


Thanks.

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by prof » Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:38 am

Dubious wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 5:12 am
prof wrote:
Mon Jul 24, 2017 1:33 am
Ethics, as I understand the findings and conclusions of the new science, by definition and observation, Ethics informs us that each individual is an uncountable bundle of value; not to be defiled. If you want to be ethical you will not kill another member of your species.
...by what criteria is "each individual an uncountable bundle of value"; what new science (that sounds bogus) proclaims that?

As BASIC ETHICS explains, first the concept "value" needs to be understood; then dimensions of value are logically derived from the Axiom of Value - which was R. S. Hartman's breakthrough that founded Value Science [Formal Axiology.] See his magnum opus, THE STRUCTURE OF VALUE. Then, one of those dimensions is shown to most-appropriately to fit a human individual. And since the size of that dimension is aleph-one [q.v., Georg Cantor's mathematical Theory of Transfinite Sets.] it follows that, by four separate proofs, that a human individual is best measured by the power of the continuum. The first 8 pages of BASIC ETHICS clearly explains the criteria. Do not skip over that argument if you care to know the answer to your query. http://www.myqol.com/wadeharvey/PDFs/BASIC%20ETHICS.pdf

As to what the new science is, see the case for it, in plain language, in the document by Dr. M. C. Katz - LIVING SUCCESSFULLY.


If you want to be ethical you will not kill another member of your species.
Is it only OUR species? Is there no infringement of ethics if we kill members of other species or is that determination beyond the scope of the New Science? Is ethics ONLY US or does it include others who inhabit the planet along with us??
The principles offered as guidelines to living a quality life can easily be extended to cover mammalia as well as humans; however the author believes it will be enough of an accomplishment to live in harmony with regard to the treatment of our fellow-humans. For example, have you, Dubious, renounced violence (war, torture, rcrelty, malice) and the various forms it takes? Have you acquired peace-of-mind and a deep sense of security? Are you fearless (but not foolhardy)? ...All of this comes with a deep devotion to Ethics. Are you a "good example", a role model?

prof
Posts: 1076
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2012 1:57 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by prof » Tue Jul 25, 2017 7:53 am

Here is a quote from pp. 41-42 of BASIC ETHICS: a systematic approach

To say "it's a choice between one man's death and hundreds" is
to get it backwards; much better would be to look at it this way: in
general, one conscious individual's life is as precious as hundreds,
and therefore we ought to proceed with that in mind !

CRITIC : “So, you can choose to kill one man and save a hundred, or kill
a hundred men to save one. Which choice is the ethical one? I don't see.”

By choosing not to kill even one person, be it man or woman. I
thus choose not to kill a hundred people. In this policy I agree
with Kant:

Immanuel Kant held that to perform a definite action that you are
pretty sure will result in someone's death is to be "'a willful cause of
that death
," and this makes you "a criminal" by his definition.

A crime that results in the death of many is worse than a crime that causes one death. To grant that is both good ethics and is common sense. However, we should preferably choose among greater goods than among lesser evils. Our orientation ought to be to maximize value.

Some imperatives stemming from the premises of this theory are the recommendations that all of us conscientiously object to the whole notion of murder ...even when it is organized. ...as it is in a warfare situation.

Renounce war as a way of life! Renounce tyranny as it is developing in its early stages. Snuff it out with nonviolent direct action. Make a better use of diplomacy than we do now.


Questions? Comments?

fooloso4
Posts: 281
Joined: Mon May 01, 2017 4:42 pm

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by fooloso4 » Tue Jul 25, 2017 5:02 pm

prof:
Let me get this straight: As a result of your reflection, analysis, or other philosophical work, is it your view, foolso4, that it is ethical for you to kill another person?

If so, by what logical process did you arrive at this conclusion? In other words, justify your position by giving the good reasonsbehind it.
There are situations in which killing is justified, the most obvious is simply put: kill or be killed. Not every decision has a good and a bad, sometimes we have to choose what is less bad. You can denounce tyranny and try to snuff it out with nonviolent direct action, but what happens when that does not work?
Obviously the critic hasn't bothered to do his homework …
Drop the pretense “prof”. You are not the professor and we are not your students.

User avatar
henry quirk
Posts: 5187
Joined: Fri May 09, 2008 8:07 pm

Dear Dr. Katz

Post by henry quirk » Wed Jul 26, 2017 3:13 pm

"If you would spell out for us how true ethics takes this moodiness into account you would be making an excellent contribution to the new science (which is named Ethics.)"

Well. I can't do that.

Why?

Ethics is manure...it's what folks drum up to justify or explain (away) why they 'did' or 'didn't', why they 'do' or 'don't'...you, for example, are lookin' to sell folks your books...you want money...nuthin' wrong with that...you market your stuff here by way of philo-jargon and casting your work as 'science'...nuthin' wrong with that...you, here, is all about self-interest and has not a thing to do with ethics...nuthin' wrong with that...your preferences and inclinations led you to this; mine led me to being a nosey parker who digs around, for a buck, into other folks lives...*shrug*...self-interest, not ethics is what drive you and me and him and her.

Ethics (like any other ghost flittin' around) is made up to, again, justify and explain away, AND to control and direct.

Me talkin' about a true ethics is me obliquely sayin' 'ethics is for shit'.

Dubious
Posts: 2209
Joined: Tue May 19, 2015 7:40 am

Re: To kill one or to kill many - a dilemma

Post by Dubious » Thu Jul 27, 2017 3:19 am

prof wrote:
Tue Jul 25, 2017 6:38 am


The principles offered as guidelines to living a quality life can easily be extended to cover mammalia as well as humans; however the author believes it will be enough of an accomplishment to live in harmony with regard to the treatment of our fellow-humans.

I don't agree in the least. If people are ethical ONLY amongst themselves while abusing, poaching and killing animals, often in a really horrendous manner or torture dogs to death to soften them up before the coup de grâce...along with many other such instances BUT otherwise judged by their ethical "treatment of their fellow-humans", then the word "Ethics" is not only an oxymoron but a curse against humans.

Ethics demands empathy toward the living but in your systematic approach to ethics it seems we're the only ones alive...or maybe what's left just isn't complex enough to deserve the same consideration!

For example, have you, Dubious, renounced violence (war, torture, rcrelty, malice) and the various forms it takes? Have you acquired peace-of-mind and a deep sense of security? Are you fearless (but not foolhardy)? ...All of this comes with a deep devotion to Ethics. Are you a "good example", a role model?
Even if I were ALL of what you mention, would that keep me from being a potential victim by those who aren't and if not, what would all my "devotion to Ethics" have been worth?

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests