A what if question ?
Mon, 2008-03-24 04:12
#1
A what if question ?
Mon, 2008-03-24 04:12
#2
Recently there have been several threads discussing violence and the type of people drawn to violent acts or situations. I thought we could discuses our personal actions/principals in difficult situations on a different level.
Well this morning I thought of three “what if questions” that I thought I would ask babblers. These questions are based upon people’s principles and moral values.
Here is the scenario.
You are walking down an isolated and rarely travelled road when come across a traffic accident. Upon investigating the accident site there are two people in a burning car, one is an adult, whom is a known child molester and the other is a young local child that you know very well. The adult was obviously conducting an illegal act on the child at the time of the accident.
[i]The first question.[/i]
The car is burning quite quickly, who do you rescue first?
[i]The second question.[/i]
Again the car is burning very fast however there is no chance in rescuing the child do you rescue the adult?
[i]The third question.[/i]
Again the car is burning very quickly you can save both of the accident victims however it will be at the cost of your own life, do you rescue both the child molester and the child?
I hope this turns into a decent and enlightened discussion, in which we can explore a difficult question(s) and scenario.
Note: I am assuming that everyone is in a health condition and is able to conduct rescue attempts.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Webgear ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 04:27
#3
Boom Boom
"I hope this turns into a decent and enlightened discussion, in which we can explore a difficult question(s) and scenario."
Heh. The scenario that you've set up, and the questions, will probably attract the troll crowd.
Mon, 2008-03-24 04:42
#4
Well it is not my intent to have trolls appear however I think this thread could be a praiseworthy thread if we can have open and honest responses.
I do not think there are right and wrong answers for a scenario like this.
A thread like this should make us think about yourselves and the principals we believe in. We all try to enforce our principals on others however are we will to stand for our moral values in a difficult situation.
Mon, 2008-03-24 05:17
#5
Weird that this question would come up today. Some of us were discussing something similar to this yesterday but it was a real scenario.
A young man of 17 years old was out drunk driving and he hit a car full of four young women. The car started to catch fire and burn, with all the women in it. Eventually three of the women were rescued but a fourth was much harder to get at. She was totally engulfed in flames and clearly in a lot of pain. Someone rescued her and now she lives as a horribly disfigured woman, who is so badly burnt she has almost no real mobility.
My immediate reaction to this was "why didn't they allow her to die"? I admit that were this woman me, I would not have wanted to be rescued only to live in such horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of my life.
I've thought about this over and over again since yesterday. Would I have rescued the woman, knowing what her life would be? To be honest, intellectually I would not, but emotionally I would want to.
In your scenario Webgear, I would probably rescue the child and if I could, I would also rescue the alleged abuser. I would not rescue either of them if it meant I would be horribly burnt. My worst fear is death by fire, and an even worse fear, is living as a major burn victim.
There you have it. I am a coward I guess.
Mon, 2008-03-24 05:20
#6
rural - Francesca
Hypothetically speaking...I'd just pull the hoses off my fire truck and dose the fire and save the day, because in my world, I drive a fire truck.
OK I got that out of my system [I tried making a cuppa tea but it wouldn't go away even then]
I think what you have not added to the situation is how a person responds in such a crisis.
You don't happen upon a burning car and have this internal conversation:
"wow a burning car"
*walks up to it*
"oh my isn't that Billy, my 12 year old neighbour who shovels my driveway and walks my dog, oh how horrible...but wait, that's Bob, who use to work at the rec centre...didn't he do time for....Bob what are you doing with Billy out here in the middle of now where in a burning car?...Billy haven't we spoken about "staying safe"?"
What really happens is 2 kilometers away you see the smoke, adrenaline kicks in, time stretches and you go into overdrive.
You fly out of your own vehicle, having called 911 upon cresting the hill and seeing the smoke is from a burning.
You pull the person you are closest too out of the car, then go back for the next one. You may decide that Billy is the first to be rescued simply because he's 12 and you can drag him away faster because he's smaller, which will give you more time for Bob before the car blows up.
But wait, change up the situation.
What if Billy turns out to be 16 and he's just dumped your daughter because she fought him off when he tried to get what he felt he was entitled too after dinner and a movie, and Bob's car is actually a gas guzzling Hummer, that he was able to purchase because his only pays his staff minimum wage and makes them cover till short falls and stolen merchandise, that spews toxic fumes where ever he goes, and there really just out joy riding as men, rulers of the world!
I think if you looking to discuss a morality play you've set up an impossible scenario. No one would dare speak up and advocate on behalf of Bob because he's creepy and is a sexual predator, Billy is simply a victim of circumstances.
Time travel morality plays are equally fascinating. The whole "would you go back in time and kill Hitler in 1939?" comes with the tapestry of subsequent history, you pull one string and it all unravels.
Do you provide medical care to an alcoholic pregnant homeless woman, who has 5 kids with FAS, all in foster care, and she's pregnant because she sells herself for booze. Besides her own life, how many lives is she destroying?
So in answer to your question, yes you save them all, as much as you can. And you go home and throw up and run the "what if's" through you head, and you wake up in a cold sweat as you relieve the moment over and over again, as your brain tries to problem solve the images burned into your brain.
But in order to sleep again, you know you must try, as no jury decided you were the ultimate judge.
Mon, 2008-03-24 06:37
#7
quote:
whom is a known child molester
Convicted child molester? Or a "known" child molester by a lynch mob?
I would try to save whomever I could but like Stargazer, I would not risk getting burned for it. I too am afraid of fire.
Mon, 2008-03-24 06:47
#8
Thanks Francesca for a realistic answer that completely avoided what I feel was a rather snarky setup.
Mon, 2008-03-24 06:56
#9
Boom Boom
Getting *all* the occupants of the vehicle to safety should be the paramount concern. I don't even know why we're debating this.
Mon, 2008-03-24 07:02
#10
quote:
I think if you looking to discuss a morality play you've set up an impossible scenario. No one would dare speak up and advocate on behalf of Bob because he's creepy and is a sexual predator, Billy is simply a victim of circumstances.
I don't think this is true. These scenarios are legitimate, and while it's easy to refuse to answer the moral questions being asked by changing the scenario, they can be an interesting exercises in testing values.
So here:
Rescue the boy first.
If the boy can't be saved, then [i]of course[/i] rescue the child molester.
I would see self-sacrifice to save two people as the moral course of action, no matter what the moral character of those being saved, though in real life I doubt I would actually do it, if death was a guaranteed result.
FWIW, I don't know that these are great questions. The last one is the only one that I can see being at all contentious.
How about this one:
A train is coming down a track where 5 workers wearing ear protection are oblivious to its approach. You see the impending disaster, and have the option to activate a switch to divert the train and save the 5 workers -- however, there is 1 worker on the other track, who will certainly die as a result of you activating the switch.
Do you activate it?
Mon, 2008-03-24 07:26
#11
remind
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: remind ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 07:43
#12
quote:
Originally posted by Proaxiom:
[b]How about this one:
A train is coming down a track where 5 workers wearing ear protection are oblivious to its approach. You see the impending disaster, and have the option to activate a switch to divert the train and save the 5 workers -- however, there is 1 worker on the other track, who will certainly die as a result of you activating the switch.
Do you activate it?[/b]
[url=http://www.open2.net/ethicsbites/trolleys-killing-double-effect.html]More on the famous Trolley Problem.[/url]
Google the thing: there's a lot more!
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 09:01
#13
I find these parlor games sickening and deeply perverse. They are predicated on the asker putting listeners in the position of 'having' to kill someone (not unlike the Nazi in "Sophie's Choice"). He wins as soon as you agree to 'play along', agree to keep *that* conceit out of the moral picture, which of course William Styron didn't - his whole book is about the perverseness of imposing such a choice, not on which victim should be chosen.
I find it significant that such 'games' turn up at a time when the morality of our invasion of Afghanistan and wholesale killing of Afghan citizens is being questioned.
Mon, 2008-03-24 09:21
#14
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]
I find it significant that such 'games' turn up at a time when the morality of our invasion of Afghanistan and wholesale killing of Afghan citizens is being questioned.[/b]
Actually, this particular "parlour game" is part of a serious philosophical argument and it's been around for some time.
Mon, 2008-03-24 09:51
#15
So has organized, State-sanctioned murder, and it just seems to me that this alleged dilemma is proferred by authorities whenever the death penalty or an impopular war is challenged.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 09:52
#16
I fully agree with martin. There are enough real-life dilemmas around without playing parlour games to measure people's inhumanity.
The next thread will be like this:
[i]"We have captured this young Afghan, and absolutely reliable intelligence reveals that he has planted a nuclear device in a major Canadian population centre that will be detonated by his confederates three days from now. You are the chief of security. Question: Would you approve torture to loosen his lips?"[/i]
Go for it, Iggy.
Mon, 2008-03-24 09:58
#17
This kind of argument is common in analytic philosophy. I have my own disagreements with analytic philosophy but I don't think it's reasonable to see this kind of "intuition testing" as a Tool of Imperialism.
Mon, 2008-03-24 10:31
#18
The authority to define reason ensures that questioning authority seems unreasonable.
Mon, 2008-03-24 10:40
#19
Boom Boom
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
I fully agree with martin. There are enough real-life dilemmas around without playing parlour games to measure people's inhumanity.]
Bingo. I wish someone would close this thread - it makes me sick.
Mon, 2008-03-24 10:43
#20
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]The authority to define reason ensures that questioning authority seems unreasonable.[/b]
Uh, yes. That's certainly true. I'm not sure it's relevant, though.
I have my own arguments against this form of argument: what it does, in large part, is elicit and clarify a person's intuitions. That's a useful result. But intuitions have a historical basis.
There is very little attempt at rational discussion anywhere in our society - particularly where moral issues are concerned - and I am anxious to encourage it.
I agree with Marx that the ruling ideas of the age are the ideas of the ruling class. But that doesn't mean I give up on reason. (Yes, of course "whose reason?" is a perfectly good question. I believe it is possible to answer it without becoming either a relativist or post-modernist.)
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 10:50
#21
quote:
Originally posted by Boom Boom:
[b]Bingo. I wish someone would close this thread - it makes me sick.[/b]
I repeat: the example is part of a serious argument about significant moral issues. But it was stupid of me to expect rational discussion.
(For the record, I oppose the imperialist war in Afghanistan with as much conviction and vehemence as anyone here.)
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 10:55
#22
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]
There is very little attempt at rational discussion anywhere in our society - particularly where moral issues are concerned - and I am anxious to encourage it.[/b]
Ok, RosaL, what would be your response to my torture scenario?
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:02
#23
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]I find these parlor games sickening and deeply perverse.[/b]
I don't think it's a "parlour game" at all. It's a thought experiment, which is intended to help one draw out and clarify (or even muddy up) one's moral intuitions. At the very least, the indecision that frequently accompanies such thought experiments can help us see that our gut-level moral intuitions are often in tension, if not downright inconsistent.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:04
#24
rural - Francesca
Regardless of the motives of the OP, I think there is insight to be gained from such "morality" plays and subsequent discussion.
I believe that we have one set of rules we believe we live by, and another set of rules that come into play when faced with the reality of life.
I always wanted another child, I have 2 and really wanted a third. The father of my children only wanted two, so we only had two. My second husband and I tried and were unsuccessful. But I always believed that if I happened to get pregnant I'd keep it regardless of the circumstances of the 'impregnation'.
Then in July of 2005 I was drugged and assaulted.
I spent 8 hours in the hospital and they gave me a pile of medication, antibiotics and stuff on the chance of STDs etc. They also strongly urged the Morning After Pill, and I was all "hell yah!"
So when I spoke to my "Baptist, ultra conservative, helped set up Birthright in our town, goes to the Right To Life dinner every year" mother, and I told her I took the pill, she was all "of course you should have"....to which I let the silence hang between us, and she said "oh".
So while her belief system was pro life under all circumstances, the reality was, when faced with a crisis, she was pro choice.
For those of you who fear fire, and count me as one of those, you may find, in the moment, that fear is over ridden.
A young woman was killed her a year or so ago. Her car cashed, her 3 passengers got out, but she was stuck. The cop arrived, and the car started to burn, but they couldn't get her out. I wept for her, the daughter of a friend, but also those that would have been at the side of that car, trying desperately to free her, only to have the fire department show up with the jaws of life, too late.
The cop burned his hands and the kids are in rough shape. But they did what they could, and it was just unfortunate, and tragic.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:07
#25
quote:
Originally posted by Stargazer:
[b]My immediate reaction to this was "why didn't they allow her to die"? I admit that were this woman me, I would not have wanted to be rescued only to live in such horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of my life.I've thought about this over and over again since yesterday. Would I have rescued the woman, knowing what her life would be? To be honest, intellectually I would not, but emotionally I would want to. [/b]
For one thing, when one is making a decision whether or not to rescue someone who is in a fire, one probably does not [i]know[/i] what her life will be like after the rescue. Few of us have the expertise to determine, in a few seconds on with too little evidence, whether someone in midst of flames will, if rescued, live with horrid pain and physical impairment for the rest of her life.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:12
#26
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Ok, RosaL, what would be your response to my torture scenario?[/b]
I think it's a very good question! I keep thinking about this one. Suppose I capture a member of the SS. If I can get him to give me a crucial piece of information, I can save 5000 (Roma or Jewish, etc.) children. Should I torture him?
So far my very inadequate answer is, "how much torture?" Would I be willing to keep awake for one night to make him talk? I think so. Would I twist his arm? I think so. Would I step on his toes? Probably. Punch him in the face? To save lives, very likely. But is there some point at which I'd say, "this is too much"? I think there would be.
But I realize that I have approved torture (at least mild torture) and of course this gives me pause. The obvious question is, where do you draw the line? And on what basis?
I think Bonhoeffer was right to try to kill Hitler. So I have approved murder, too. And there's a "where do you draw the line" question there, too. But I'm not a pacifist.
(I have used Nazi examples because I think they're less inflammatory.)
Well, I have probably disgusted everybody, now. But I do think it's important to try to have these kinds of discussions.
There are more fundamental questions here: am I a utilitarian? a deontologist? some mixture of both? something else?
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:16
#27
I'm pretty sure, torontoprofessor, that if the car is in a ball of flames, the person inside is not going to come out without severe injuries.
Besides, this was my answer to the question. Not your answer, nor the way you think - clearly.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:18
#28
RosaL, I am sorry but I feel that my response was quite rational in unpacking the construction and the context of this "thought experiment".
I am honoured to see that everyone of us has resisted the original set-up of whom to pull from the fire and therefore whom do we feel entitled to condemn to suffering and eventual death when circumstances justify it yadda yadda
ETA: Oops, just read RosaL's latest post: I spoke too soon, alas. Bring on the rational tortioners.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:23
#29
Stargazer, I realize that this was your answer to the question not mine. I was merely articulating considerations that might be relevant to the issue.
I agree that, if the car is in a ball of flames, there will probably be severe injuries. I know that I myself, if I were in a rescue situation, do not have the expertise to determine whether those severe injuries would be lifelong injuries. So I would rescue the person (if I had the strength and courage and were in a position to do so) and hope that injuries would such that the person could go on to lead a fruitful life.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:32
#30
quote:
Originally posted by martin dufresne:
[b]
ETA: Oops, just read RosaL's latest post: I spoke too soon, alas. Bring on the rational tortioners.[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ][/b]
Well, I don't think there are many people who wouldn't twist someone's arm to save a child. I agree that raises a lot of questions. But unless you are a pacifist, you are a "rational murderer" already.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:40
#31
I think perhaps those who aren't comfortable with this thread and with doing thought experiments should probably just read some other threads. I am uncomfortable with shutting down a thread that starts with a classic analytic philosophy thought experiment. This IS the humanities and science forum, after all.
I'm sure we can accommodate everyone who wants to have their say on this. Some people want to do the thought experiment together, others would like to discuss the politics behind thought experiments and why they don't like doing them.
So, how about two separate threads?
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:42
#32
The politics of such a disconnect are... saddening.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:43
#33
Was that in response to my post?
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: Michelle ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:50
#34
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]I think perhaps those who aren't comfortable with this thread and with doing thought experiments should probably just read some other threads. I am uncomfortable with shutting down a thread that starts with a classic analytic philosophy thought experiment. This IS the humanities and science forum, after all.I'm sure we can accommodate everyone who wants to have their say on this. Some people want to do the thought experiment together, others would like to discuss the politics behind thought experiments and why they don't like doing them.
So, how about two separate threads?[/b]
That sounds good to me.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:56
#35
This is where the rational mask slips off the politic of domination: when it needs to silence critical examination of its tenets in order to proceed with its reconstruction of reality.
Mon, 2008-03-24 11:56
#36
Catchfire
The trick, RosaL and Webgear, is not to get you to endorse murder, torture or passive-aggressive capital punishment, but to get you to do it without ever giving you your burning child molester, or SS who is withholding a piece of information that will somehow save 5000 lives.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:01
#37
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]The trick, RosaL and Webgear, is not to get you to endorse murder, torture or passive-aggressive capital punishment, but to get you to do it without ever giving you your burning child molester, or SS who is withholding a piece of information that will somehow save 5000 lives.[/b]
It's because I think that absolutist positions on these issues are rationally and morally untenable that I think we need to discuss them. I think discussing the nature of moral reasoning, what precisely I believe, what my commitments are, is my defense against precisely the kind of thing you describe.
If I thought I could say, "never torture" or "never kill", I wouldn't have to think about things like this. But I can't say that. So I need to think about when or why I think it might be necessary (and justifiable) to do such things.
There are certainly pacifists I respect (and I regard the "no torture under any circumstances" position as a strengthened form of pacifism), e.g., the people who went to Iraq and were captured and later released. Those people risked their lives for what they believe, and one of them lost his. I also know that they would find these questions worthy of discussion, though I know their answers would be different than mine. Perhaps they would convince me. But they wouldn't do it by attacking my integrity. (You haven't done that, Catchfire, but others have.) They'd talk about the issues.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:06
#38
Catchfire
What you seem to miss, RosaL, is that the question is not "do you think you have the capacity for murder?" or, "do you think that it is possible for murder or torture to be justified?" Rather, the questions posed in such problems are always impossible situations. Absurd. And yet we offer up our virginity before even getting that first kiss.
It is this sort of thinking that leads to "nuanced" positions on abortion and carbon-trading solutions to climate change.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:18
#39
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]What you seem to miss, RosaL, is that the question is not "do you think you have the capacity for murder?" or, "do you think that it is possible for murder or torture to be justified?" Rather, the questions posed in such problems are always impossible situations. Absurd. [/b]
Are you seriously saying that no real situation could justify killing someone? or, for example, twisting someone's arm? I can give you several real examples, if you like.
Bonhoeffer was a pacifist and a follower of Ghandi until he decided to participate in a plot to kill Hitler. The plot failed and he was hung. He didn't do this because he supported the politics of domination.
During WWII, the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. Their pastor, a man who held absolutist views, let it be known that, if questioned by the Nazis, he would not lie. Some of the villagers decided they would have to kill him.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:33
#40
Catchfire
That's not what I said at all. I think "justice" is too slippery a word to nail down what is justified, although I tend to think that a state that prohibits murder shouldn't be involved in the practice itself. What I am saying is that questions like the one in the OP have nothing to do with asking whether murder, or torture, or whatever are justified. It gives you a situation that will never happen and encourages you to let state-sanctioned murder in the back-door; or did you think that the OP begins and ends with letting this particular child molester live or die? (If so, I refer you to Francesca's wonderful satire of such a scenario, above.)
You want me to say that I would twist an arm in some situations. This is different from asking if such an act is justified. It also legitimates a whole spectrum of violent acts inflicted on the human body, by the logic of increment (you can do one more push-up, can't you? Just one more?) If you agree to play the game, you agree to the unjust rules inherent to it (i.e. martin's post above).
Show me a case where someone tortured an SS officer and saved 5000 lives (or just one!) and I'll consider your question. Until then, you can keep playing solitaire.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:38
#41
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b][Re unionist's torture of young Afghan scenario:] I think it's a very good question! I keep thinking about this one. [/b]
It's not a very good question at all. I invented it to show that the question is the problem, not the answer. The question is premised on young Afghans being likely to be terrorists intent on wreaking nuclear havoc as part of their "jihad".
So, correct answer is:
[i]The question itself constitutes part of the "war on terror" aimed at generating hatred against certain populations in order to justify aggression and occupation. The question is morally wrong.[/i]
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:40
#42
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]Show me a case where someone tortured an SS officer and saved 5000 lives (or just one!) and I'll consider your question. Until then, you can keep playing solitaire.[/b]
Excellent - that was going to be my answer to the SS scenario.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:41
#43
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]It's not a very good question at all. I invented it to show that the question is the problem, not the answer. The question is premised on young Afghans being likely to be terrorists intent on wreaking nuclear havoc as part of their "jihad".
So, correct answer is:
[i]The question itself constitutes part of the "war on terror" aimed at generating hatred against certain populations in order to justify aggression and occupation. The question is morally wrong.[/i][/b]
It's because of "war on terror" propaganda that I changed the question to something historically realistic.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:44
#44
quote:
Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
So, how about two separate threads?[/b]
Absolutely not. Separating these issues validates the view that this is just an "experiment" without profound moral, social, and political consequences.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:45
#45
rural - Francesca
So the moral dilemma is not in the answer, the moral dilemma and ethics of the question are what is the measure of our humanity.
What if the scenario was off world?
Can we examine our perceived ethics by utilizing non human scenarios.
Kobashi Maru
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:50
#46
quote:
Originally posted by Catchfire:
[b]That's not what I said at all. I think "justice" is too slippery a word to nail down what is justified, although I tend to think that a state that prohibits murder shouldn't be involved in the practice itself. What I am saying is that questions like the one in the OP have nothing to do with asking whether murder, or torture, or whatever are justified. It gives you a situation that will never happen and encourages you to let state-sanctioned murder in the back-door; or did you think that the OP begins and ends with letting this particular child molester live or die? (If so, I refer you to Francesca's wonderful satire of such a scenario, above.)You want me to say that I would twist an arm in some situations. This is different from asking if such an act is justified. It also legitimates a whole spectrum of violent acts inflicted on the human body, by the logic of increment (you can do one more push-up, can't you? Just one more?) If you agree to play the game, you agree to the unjust rules inherent to it (i.e. martin's post above).
Show me a case where someone tortured an SS officer and saved 5000 lives (or just one!) and I'll consider your question. Until then, you can keep playing solitaire.[/b]
I don't believe I used the word "justice". And I'm not defending either capital punishment or the war in Afghanistan. I'm defending things like the Haitian revolution in the late 18th, early 19th century. And of course asking whether you would do something is different from the question of whether it is justified, though sometimes one is used as shorthand for the other. (You must give me some credit, here.) I admit though that I wasn't precise.
Why won't anyone discuss the murder cases? They are based on historical fact. And surely if murder is sometimes justified, so is torture in some form (eg hair-pulling, arm twisting)? In any case, if you are opposed to inflicting any form of violence on the human body then you must be a pacifist.
In the meantime, I will look for a historical example about torture. But it may take me awhile. I am supposed to be working. In the mean time, please answer my examples about killing.
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:54
#47
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]During WWII, the village of Le Chambon-sur-Lignon sheltered between 3,000 and 5,000 refugees, most of them Jews. Their pastor, a man who held absolutist views, let it be known that, if questioned by the Nazis, he would not lie. Some of the villagers decided they would have to kill him.[/b]
I never heard this story.
But if it is true, bravo to the villagers for deciding to kill him.
War is war, and you have to kill to save lives. Every child knows that.
But first you have to decide which side you're on.
Mon, 2008-03-24 12:55
#48
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]I never heard this story.
But if it is true, bravo to the villagers for deciding to kill him.
War is war, and you have to kill to save lives. Every child knows that.
But first you have to decide which side you're on.[/b]
Precisely. (And thank you for responding to the example.)
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]
Mon, 2008-03-24 13:01
#49
quote:
Originally posted by RosaL:
[b]Precisely. (And thank you for responding to the example.)[/b]
Good. Now your view on my young Afghan question and on my answer, please, when you are ready.
Mon, 2008-03-24 13:02
#50
Sorry for being snarly TOprof, I think your response to me is where my problem lies. I don't think I would be doing this woman a favour by rescuing her. I guess what I am trying to say is, if I were the one in the burning car, and a rescue was objectively going to cause me serious physical damage, I would not want to be rescued. Of course, there is always a small possibility that the injuries would not be as bad as I think they would be.
quote:
I agree that, if the car is in a ball of flames, there will probably be severe injuries. I know that I myself, if I were in a rescue situation, do not have the expertise to determine whether those severe injuries would be lifelong injuries. So I would rescue the person (if I had the strength and courage and were in a position to do so) and hope that injuries would such that the person could go on to lead a fruitful life.
Mon, 2008-03-24 13:17
#51
quote:
Originally posted by unionist:
[b]Good. Now your view on my young Afghan question and on my answer, please, when you are ready.[/b]
Well, as I already said, the whole scenerio is part of the "war on terror" propaganda, which is why I didn't respond to it.
IF it were true that a nuclear catastrophe could be averted by some measure of torture, then I think it might well be justified, depending on the torture.
But if someone made your Afghan argument, in the particular historical circumstances now obtaining, obviously I'd suspect a hidden agenda. Nothing like this is even remotely the truth. I'd almost certainly turn the argument to the hidden agenda and implicit claim. If the person insisted there was no hidden agenda, I'd say, "fine. But make it someone other than an Afghan terrorist. Let's make it George Bush, perhaps. Or, to be politically neutral, an alien from Mars." Then we could argue the thing. if they then wanted to go back and say, "but this is precisely the situation in Afghanistan", I'd say, "No, it's not" and we'd argue that issue.
I have no trouble debating an "if - then" argument and then debating the truth of the "if". It is entirely reasonable - and often useful - to say, "If situation A were the case, then action B would be justified" and "But situation A is not the case and action B is not justified". However, this kind of thing will get you crucified.
In the case you mention, I'd suspect a hidden agenda. But that doesn't mean that anyone who presents a "moral quandry" example about killing or torture has the same agenda. Some of us are trying to work out what to do during the revolution!
[ 24 March 2008: Message edited by: RosaL ]