A kind of trolley problem

[Gary Childress]

We all have to go at some point. I think the most noble way to die is to die as a result of one's compassion. Father Maximilian Kolbe was another interesting man of conscience.

I belonged to Amnesty International many years ago and wrote a few letters to free prisoners of conscience, people similar to Father Kolbe and Simone Weil in some ways.

[Sculptor]

All other things equal, if a mentally ill 56-year-old male who was institutionalized for having repeated psychoses and an otherwise healthy 56-year-old male who was a mechanic were both in the process of drowning and there was but one life preserver to throw, and that life preserver was able to save only one of them. Who ought to be thrown the life preserver? Is there a moral imperative to choose one over the other? And if so, which one? And why?

My guess is that the mechanic would be the right choice to save, just because s/he is in a better position to do more good in the world.

Other thoughts?

The problem with this scenario is the phrase "all other things being equal" as they never are. The guy with the life preserver who have to have knowledge of the drowning men for this to be a dilemma. The smart choice would be to throw the ring to the person that would be best equipped to use it to help them both. That is probably going to be the mechanic who would have enough practical knoweldge to help himself rescue the nutter. There is no reasonable case that the ring could save only one.
If these factors are unknown then whomsoever is nearest the ring would be handed the ring.

For this to be a dilemma a series of impossible things would have to be true.

[phyllo]

I think the most noble way to die is to die as a result of one's compassion.

Why die for nothing?

If compassion leads to nothing ...

[Gary Childress]

I think the most noble way to die is to die as a result of one's compassion.

Why die for nothing?

If compassion leads to nothing ...

Well, that's the rub. Some will say someone like Simone Weil died for nothing, which in a sense is an apt description because the conquest of France was ultimately in a war that was inhumane and ultimately didn't bring any kind of lasting solution to the world's problems. On the other hand I think it speaks volumes about the kind of person she was. She died for nothing BECAUSE of the injustices happening in the world. She threw her life away as an act of compassion and solidarity with the suffering.

[Gary Childress]

All other things equal, if a mentally ill 56-year-old male who was institutionalized for having repeated psychoses and an otherwise healthy 56-year-old male who was a mechanic were both in the process of drowning and there was but one life preserver to throw, and that life preserver was able to save only one of them. Who ought to be thrown the life preserver? Is there a moral imperative to choose one over the other? And if so, which one? And why?

My guess is that the mechanic would be the right choice to save, just because s/he is in a better position to do more good in the world.

Other thoughts?

The problem with this scenario is the phrase "all other things being equal" as they never are. The guy with the life preserver who have to have knowledge of the drowning men for this to be a dilemma. The smart choice would be to throw the ring to the person that would be best equipped to use it to help them both. That is probably going to be the mechanic who would have enough practical knoweldge to help himself rescue the nutter. There is no reasonable case that the ring could save only one.
If these factors are unknown then whomsoever is nearest the ring would be handed the ring.

For this to be a dilemma a series of impossible things would have to be true.

Well it's not so much a dilemma if there is a clear cut moral answer and I think the answer is the one I gave. As far as the actual mechanics of the scenario as presented, it could be spiffed up a bit to make it more along the lines of an absolute either-or choice of rescuing one person instead of the other.

[phyllo]

I think the most noble way to die is to die as a result of one's compassion.

Why die for nothing?

If compassion leads to nothing ...

Well, that's the rub. Some will say someone like Simone Weil died for nothing, which in a sense is an apt description because the conquest of France was ultimately in a war that was inhumane and ultimately didn't bring any kind of lasting solution to the world's problems. On the other hand I think it speaks volumes about the kind of person she was. She died for nothing BECAUSE of the injustices happening in the world. She threw her life away as an act of compassion and solidarity with the suffering.

I think that is confused.

If she had died attempting to alleviate suffering then it would make sense. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

[Gary Childress]

Why die for nothing?

If compassion leads to nothing ...

Well, that's the rub. Some will say someone like Simone Weil died for nothing, which in a sense is an apt description because the conquest of France was ultimately in a war that was inhumane and ultimately didn't bring any kind of lasting solution to the world's problems. On the other hand I think it speaks volumes about the kind of person she was. She died for nothing BECAUSE of the injustices happening in the world. She threw her life away as an act of compassion and solidarity with the suffering.

I think that is confused.

If she had died attempting to alleviate suffering then it would make sense. But that doesn't seem to be the case.

True. But under the circumstances she was in, how could she alleviate the suffering of others that was weighing on her mind? It doesn't seem like she was in a position to do anything about it. So she self-destructed in an act of protest. In a sense she was a victim of inhumanity too. The world lost a great mind because of the insanity of the mid 20th century.

[phyllo]

When there is nothing to do, then do nothing.

[Sculptor]

All other things equal, if a mentally ill 56-year-old male who was institutionalized for having repeated psychoses and an otherwise healthy 56-year-old male who was a mechanic were both in the process of drowning and there was but one life preserver to throw, and that life preserver was able to save only one of them. Who ought to be thrown the life preserver? Is there a moral imperative to choose one over the other? And if so, which one? And why?

My guess is that the mechanic would be the right choice to save, just because s/he is in a better position to do more good in the world.

Other thoughts?

The problem with this scenario is the phrase "all other things being equal" as they never are. The guy with the life preserver who have to have knowledge of the drowning men for this to be a dilemma. The smart choice would be to throw the ring to the person that would be best equipped to use it to help them both. That is probably going to be the mechanic who would have enough practical knoweldge to help himself rescue the nutter. There is no reasonable case that the ring could save only one.
If these factors are unknown then whomsoever is nearest the ring would be handed the ring.

For this to be a dilemma a series of impossible things would have to be true.

Well it's not so much a dilemma if there is a clear cut moral answer and I think the answer is the one I gave. As far as the actual mechanics of the scenario as presented, it could be spiffed up a bit to make it more along the lines of an absolute either-or choice of rescuing one person instead of the other.

No there is no moral issue since this is a fantasy that cannot exist. Please tell me how two people drowning could not assist each other, say, in sharing the ring? In what bizare world is it that there is an exact equal distance between two drowning men with only one person able to help but only with the use of one ring, whilst this person also knows, in very limited detail, the life situations of each of the drowning persons? Yet all things being equal as you say that person can only respond on two scant facts which relate to one person's mental health and the other persons professsion.
Odd to say the least.
My immediate view would be that the tiny bit of information you gave has no relationship to any moral guide as to their value in life.

[Gary Childress]

The problem with this scenario is the phrase "all other things being equal" as they never are. The guy with the life preserver who have to have knowledge of the drowning men for this to be a dilemma. The smart choice would be to throw the ring to the person that would be best equipped to use it to help them both. That is probably going to be the mechanic who would have enough practical knoweldge to help himself rescue the nutter. There is no reasonable case that the ring could save only one.
If these factors are unknown then whomsoever is nearest the ring would be handed the ring.

For this to be a dilemma a series of impossible things would have to be true.

Well it's not so much a dilemma if there is a clear cut moral answer and I think the answer is the one I gave. As far as the actual mechanics of the scenario as presented, it could be spiffed up a bit to make it more along the lines of an absolute either-or choice of rescuing one person instead of the other.

No there is no moral issue since this is a fantasy that cannot exist. Please tell me how two people drowning could not assist each other, say, in sharing the ring? In what bizare world is it that there is an exact equal distance between two drowning men with only one person able to help but only with the use of one ring, whilst this person also knows, in very limited detail, the life situations of each of the drowning persons? Yet all things being equal as you say that person can only respond on two scant facts which relate to one person's mental health and the other persons professsion.
Odd to say the least.
My immediate view would be that the tiny bit of information you gave has no relationship to any moral guide as to their value in life.

Fair enough. forget about it. I'll move on to something else.

[Sculptor]

Well it's not so much a dilemma if there is a clear cut moral answer and I think the answer is the one I gave. As far as the actual mechanics of the scenario as presented, it could be spiffed up a bit to make it more along the lines of an absolute either-or choice of rescuing one person instead of the other.

No there is no moral issue since this is a fantasy that cannot exist. Please tell me how two people drowning could not assist each other, say, in sharing the ring? In what bizare world is it that there is an exact equal distance between two drowning men with only one person able to help but only with the use of one ring, whilst this person also knows, in very limited detail, the life situations of each of the drowning persons? Yet all things being equal as you say that person can only respond on two scant facts which relate to one person's mental health and the other persons professsion.
Odd to say the least.
My immediate view would be that the tiny bit of information you gave has no relationship to any moral guide as to their value in life.

Fair enough. forget about it. I'll move on to something else.

Okay, but asking whether or not a person with mental health issues has less moral right to live against a mechanic is odd.

[Gary Childress]

No there is no moral issue since this is a fantasy that cannot exist. Please tell me how two people drowning could not assist each other, say, in sharing the ring? In what bizare world is it that there is an exact equal distance between two drowning men with only one person able to help but only with the use of one ring, whilst this person also knows, in very limited detail, the life situations of each of the drowning persons? Yet all things being equal as you say that person can only respond on two scant facts which relate to one person's mental health and the other persons professsion.
Odd to say the least.
My immediate view would be that the tiny bit of information you gave has no relationship to any moral guide as to their value in life.

Fair enough. forget about it. I'll move on to something else.

Okay, but asking whether or not a person with mental health issues has less moral right to live against a mechanic is odd.

Well, as someone with a mental illness, I often feel unworthy of life. Even Marx would call me "lumpenproletariat" because I'm not useful to 'the revolution'. Sometimes I wonder if Marx wasn't influenced by Calvinism.

[phyllo]

Okay, but asking whether or not a person with mental health issues has less moral right to live against a mechanic is odd.

Not really. It's similar to the lifeboat problem ... there are too many people in a lifeboat and someone has to be thrown overboard.

Should it be the old person, the criminal, the kid, the fat person, etc? And what's the reasoning behind the decision?

[Sculptor]

Fair enough. forget about it. I'll move on to something else.

Okay, but asking whether or not a person with mental health issues has less moral right to live against a mechanic is odd.

Well, as someone with a mental illness, I often feel unworthy of life. Even Marx would call me "lumpenproletariat" because I'm not useful to 'the revolution'. Sometimes I wonder if Marx wasn't influenced by Calvinism.

Marx was keen to lift the people from their chains.
Calvin was a snotty arse.
Feeling unworthy does not mean others do, or ought to, feel that you are unworthy. My brothers was full on schizophrenic with paranoid tendancies. From the age of 18 to his death age 62 he never worked and lived off the state and the largesse of our mum.
If I had ever seen him drowning I would have thrown him the ring over any mechanic, peer of the realm, aristocrat or monarch.
And if I had your acquaintance for any length of time I'd thrown you the ring over any stranger.

[Gary Childress]

Okay, but asking whether or not a person with mental health issues has less moral right to live against a mechanic is odd.

Well, as someone with a mental illness, I often feel unworthy of life. Even Marx would call me "lumpenproletariat" because I'm not useful to 'the revolution'. Sometimes I wonder if Marx wasn't influenced by Calvinism.

Marx was keen to lift the people from their chains.
Calvin was a snotty arse.
Feeling unworthy does not mean others do, or ought to, feel that you are unworthy. My brothers was full on schizophrenic with paranoid tendancies. From the age of 18 to his death age 62 he never worked and lived off the state and the largesse of our mum.
If I had ever seen him drowning I would have thrown him the ring over any mechanic, peer of the realm, aristocrat or monarch.
And if I had your acquaintance for any length of time I'd thrown you the ring over any stranger.

Thank you. I appreciate the sentiment.