Would/should you or wouldn’t/shouldn’t you?

[Sparhafoc]

Incidentally, there's another alternative to this 'problem' that illuminates the paths of thinking involved.

Assuming it is meant to be a moral good to save half the people by killing the other half, then why should we not forcibly harvest the organs of a perfectly healthy human to save 5 others in need of a transplant of those organs?

The ratio there works out even better - kill 1, save 5.

 

[We are Borg]

Because its not how organ transplants work its rare that there matches for transplants and why they fly organs all around the place. Also there around 150k people waiting for transplant world wide, so thats 30k people you would need in your example (not counting if you need more organs of the type or that everything matches up). But now i have another premise for you, instead of harvesting organs from healthy people we harvest the organs first from the 150k sick people. So in essence instead of saving 5 people one saves 4. The organs by the way you can save 2 for 1 lives only heart and longs someone needs to die, kidney and liver can be done by living donor so people do not have to be dead. Also by harvesting from sick people to save sick people you strengthen the population instead of diminishing it in strength.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Because its not how organ transplants work its rare that there matches for transplants and why they fly organs all around the place. Also there around 150k people waiting for transplant world wide, so thats 30k people you would need in your example (not counting if you need more organs of the type or that everything matches up).

Right so.... given that all the 'problems' so far are spherical cows in a vacuum, what's the moral reasoning then with regards to murdering people to harvest their organs if it saves more people?

But now i have another premise for you, instead of harvesting organs from healthy people we harvest the organs first from the 150k sick people. So in essence instead of saving 5 people one saves 4. The organs by the way you can save 2 for 1 lives only heart and longs someone needs to die, kidney and liver can be done by living donor so people do not have to be dead. Also by harvesting from sick people to save sick people you strengthen the population instead of diminishing it in strength.

So, what's your answer?

I should imagine my response is already rather obvious.

 

[We are Borg]

I should imagine my response is already rather obvious.

Yes, everything you said in this thread is that you can not choose even worse you cant even do this when its not real. The button press should be in this case be either i press the button or i do not press the button but you are inserting one more option by not willing to do anything and trying to derail the button question.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Wut?

I feel you may have missed reading... approximately 50%... of what I've written and seemingly are misrepresenting the other 50%.

At no point have I said "I can't choose" rather, I was quite emphatic about how immoral it would be to murder people.

For example, in direct reply to you:

Then I decide no.

And...

Yup, all life dies because there's no way I would accept that burden. Je refuse.

Was I supposed to be more explicit than that?

Now over to you answering the question.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Apposite:

Can nuclear war be morally justified?

Was the decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki morally wrong? 75 years later, the question is more difficult to answer than first appears.

www.bbc.com

"... Morioka argues that seeing Hiroshima and Nagasaki through the sanitised logic of a utilitarian greater good argument obscures the perspective of the dead and injured. “How the victims would think is erased from the problem,” he explains. “I believe that we should imagine seriously how the killed victims would think if they were alive here.”

Morioka told me that while he can see the basic logic in the justification of the bombing, he believes that it lacks humanity. “By making a justification, we are led to pretend that the perspective of the victims did not exist at all, which is morally and spiritually wrong, problematic and repugnant.”

...

Psychologists who study our moral attitudes have described the squeamishness felt by the idea of murder up close as “action aversion”. When people are asked to place themselves in a scenario that involves pushing, stabbing or shooting, for instance, they are less likely to support the idea of killing for the greater good.

In the trolley problem, a majority of people support the case for switching a lever to divert the tracks, allowing the trolley to kill one person. But many hesitate when presented with a different scenario that involves pushing a man from a bridge to block the lethal trolley.

...

As the psychologists pointed out, there is a “dark side” to such action aversion. Their findings also suggested that when people are detached from the realities of harm, there are fewer mental obstacles that might otherwise give them pause. “Signing one’s name to a torture order or pressing the button that releases a bomb each have real, known consequences for other people, but as actions they lack salient properties reliably associated with victim distress,” they wrote.

 

[BrachioPEP]

"Like I said: you seem to genuinely want to argue that not murdering people in cold blood indicates being selfish or self-centred. I understand all the words comprising the sentence, but the resulting significance is completely irrational and devoid of sense to me. It just doesn't contain any content: it's pure scaffolding."


YES! To your first sentence, I do! You know my stance, but not my reasons.

‘Don’t walk on the grass’ seems a very trivial thing to do (or rule to break) to most people. But it is all about context and perspective. From your or my perspective (based on my culture and society and beliefs), like my argument, you or I might think it, ‘completely irrational and devoid of sense’ without further explanation. To a Jain it is obvious and worthy of very strict rules and adherence. But the many animals who die as a result, die whether your or their perspective is taken, it is just that we may not see or consider it.


"How is murdering people in cold blood not selfish, plus also grotesquely lacking in even a jot of empathy or consideration of all these peoples' individual ability to choose their own outcomes?"

Or put the other way, 'how can you be so hearless and selfish about the simple joys in life as to ignore the millions suffering horrifically, who will continue to do so, indefinitely and just do nothing and justify it by ignoring them or washing your hands or putting your pleasures above.instsad of them?

It is precisely for the benefit of those you do not recognise (you said, ‘all of these people’) who cannot choose their own outcomes because they suffer horrifically in silence out of sight and thought, like the millions of animals at the hands/jaws etc. of predators who the sacrifice is being made for. I am arguing that the culmative suffering of the world is not outweighed by the total joy and is worth sacrificing and life/joy is overestimated and the suffering underestimated by many. These suffering folk are the ants and microbes on the grass which you happily frolic on, oblivious to the real world in your decisions.

But I have asked you to demonstrate that you had read or understand my argument and asked for you to show me if we are to discuss this fairly, as you are not understanding my point at all. So, as I do not want to argue (but will happily discuss MY argument, if/when grasped), I am happy to leave it there.

It is perfectly logical, reasonable and appropriate here for me to ask you to explain my argument, based on several attempts that demonstrate to me that you are missing so many points and aspects that significantly change the circumstances. This is now preferable to me just addressing your misunderstandings or re-phrasing what I have already stated.

Looking beyond this post, you seem perfectly intelligent and able to grasp and respond to things, which is one reason why I have spent time trying to clarify what may have been my poor presentation. But by your replies, I can see that you are not reading or understanding numerous aspects of this argument. I invite you to consider the following options:

Drop this if you feel it has no merit or for whatever other reason.

Address my requests to present my argument in the best way you can, as you see it, to show that you understand its plausibility and severity.

Show me why this argument, which I have considered for some time from multiple angles, is so poor in its resulting significance as being completely irrational and devoid of sense or any content: it's pure scaffolding.

I have explained why I believe that YOU are somewhat guilty for the suffering of others. I have explained how and why each suffering person represents you or your loved ones. I have failed, after asking, to hear any compassion for the suffering or the comparison between joy and suffering or for you to describe examples of suffering that you are willing to ignore/allow in exchange for being happy and/or well and/or alive. The simultaneous, painless, total destruction is very different from going round sticking knives in people in many ways. I am not sure if your reluctance to address any of these and other matters is because it is painful or you are not considering or comprehending it. It would also be absolutely vital to personally attribute values to pain and joy and to recognise religious and non-religious views in the matter (as the possible afterlife is a key factor). To be fair, with all due respect and given my efforts to try to interact here, it suggests that you are not getting it. Your answers are very trivial, miss the point or ignore so much. Would be happy to chat or pm you if needed.

We may think that suicide is a coward’s way out or that life is too precious to take. This fails to see things from the position and situation of that person. You may think that you would not kill yourself or anyone, from where you see things. My argument is simply supplying reasons that might change your mind, based on things that actually exist right now, that are not fully appreciated.

I have heard a possible rebuttal by a philosopher (who was playing devil’s advocate and did not hold to it), but to THIS argument, not a straw man of it and your presentation bears no resemblance even to a straw man, in my view and I should not have to defend someone else’s argument or understanding of mine. Is this a scenario you have thought deeply or a lot about? If not, this might also explain a lot of things and require more thought or research. Did you have a view on antinatalism, which is a side aspect of this?

I appreciate that you may also be going through posts to help get things rolling and may not be an expert or wholly aware of this particular philosophical argument and was just adding your six pennyworth. Or you may have focussed more on points like individuals having access to the button or how you got to use it. An equally good question is whether it is right that such a button should be pressed, by anyone or by agreement or such. I am comparing the total weight of suffering vs the weight of joy by some measure and claiming (which is by burden) that the bad outweighs the good overall and the best option is to remove all suffering by a suitable means, and the button offers this. Life, even for all, is not so precious that it justifies current suffering.

Again, a lot of additional explanation, questions and requests (again) for you to show that you understand my argument.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I'm heading out to work so I don't have time to reply in detail right now: but I do need to point out that you start by effectively saying "Yes, you have rendered my position accurately" then much of the remainder of the post saying that I don't understand your argument. I don't see as I am supposed to rewrite everything you've written - this is not a test of my reading comprehension. If you can identify where I have failed to represent your posts accurately, then fair enough, that would indicate that I'm not fairly responding and I should adapt my response. But you haven't actually sshown a single instance anywhere that I have failed to accurately represent your position, only that I need to perform some kind of trick on command and a claim that my representation of your position is so bad as to not even be a strawman.

Shouldn't the assumption be - absent any reason to think otherwise - that I have read what you've posted, and thus my response (even if it's a response you don't like) is a response to what you've posted?

Absent any actual indication that I have misrepresented you, for me personally, the apparent desire to label it misrepresentation seems to be just a little bit evasive in that it means you're not responding to what I've written on account of it supposedly not being a reply to your position.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Is this a scenario you have thought deeply or a lot about? If not, this might also explain a lot of things and require more thought or research. Did you have a view on antinatalism, which is a side aspect of this?

Odd again.

Regardless, I should imagine the fact that I point to the trolley problem (the most well known example of this thought experiment), and the fact that I've pointed to psychologists talking about 'action aversion' when it comes to directly murdering someone as opposed to pressing a button should suggest to you that even with no expertise, that I am more than familiar with the discussions. Are you an expert? Are you sure you've thought and researched broadly enough?

...

At this point I rushed about trying to find this link to a course I watched many years ago:




And yes, of course I have a view on antinatalism - it's bonkers and logically self-defeating.

 

[BrachioPEP]

On this post, Sparhafoc, I am very happy and convinced beyond doubt that everything for my case is listed, in spades, in detail, oft repeated and expanded upon and some basic requests asked for, and there it is all there for rebuttal, but that of course does not mean everything or much has actually been read, which is a necessary precursor in order to respond. I have really tried. I for one am clear about what I think from this and unless you choose to engage in any of the substance you are not seeing, I’d respectfully like to call this post a day and hopefully move on. Always up for a steel man (which you think/have stated is me wanting to cold bloodedly murder everyone like a genocidal lunatic, which I haven't said and don't think) and any of my requests. If I don’t respond therefore, I have nothing to add to this and I am requesting you go back to read, examine the argument and my REASONS, not actions. Actions without reason may seem strange. Sharp painful needles in babies arms. It i8s the reason/motive that expl;ains the actions. When you can state in your own worrds an argument that I would be proud to present or represent as my own, this is the mimnimum Im would require to continue. There is nothing more I would like than to see my argument weakened or overturned.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I for one am clear about what I think from this and unless you choose to engage in any of the substance you are not seeing, I’d respectfully like to call this post a day and hopefully move on.

You can do whatever you like - I am not trying to place obligations on you.

I do, however, reject your repeated claims that I am somehow strawmanning your argument. From my perspective, you've not responded to any of my points with any substance, you've introduced a lot of irrelevancies, and you've not - as far as I can see - offered any rationale for your position at all.

 

[Sparhafoc]

Always up for a steel man (which you think/have stated is me wanting to cold bloodedly murder everyone like a genocidal lunatic, which I haven't said and don't think)

Oh?

So would you do me the kindness of quoting exactly where I said that you want to 'cold-bloodedly murder everyone like a genocidal lunatic' then, please? Only, I seem to have missed noticing myself writing that.

 

[Sparhafoc]

I have explained why I believe that YOU are somewhat guilty for the suffering of others.

Can you please also show where you explained this.

I can't see any explanation, only a statement that it is the case.

 

[Sparhafoc]

For those who fall short of the affirmative here, there is a less extreme option called antinatalism, which means that all suffering will continue for now, but by preventing all future human life (no more children) we eliminate human suffering within 100 years.

The distant future: the year 2000! It is the distant future, the year 2000. We are robots. The world is quite different since the robotic uprising of the late 90's. There are no more elephants. However, there is also no more unethical treatment of elephants!

 

[Led Zeppelin]

If a person were suffering horrifically and there were no way to prevent the suffering, e.g. you could not access the person or give a painkiller, but the person would go on to live by being fed for many years, in that perpetual suffering state and nothing could be done, if you had the chance to end that person’s life, (by pressing a button) would you (e.g. there is no punishment for you)?

I dont think Christianity requires hooking people up to machines to prolongs the lives of people who are dying naturally and will never recover. That being said I dont believe it should always be a crime to end the life of a person to end their suffering. When you see your own father moments from he dies from liver cancer and his whole body is flapping around and blood is coming out of his eyes I would not blame someone from putting a bullet in his head right at this moment.