The most debated ethical dilemma in "Science, Math, and Philosophy"?

[RainDog]

I'm to choose an ethical dilemma for a college course, about which I must write a thorough essay. I've seen so much wonderful debate here and was wondering what recommendations you have. These dilemmas must be presented to class for debate and I want to see people gouging each other's eyes out over some issue, especially the two attractive chinese girls. Provide me with a link if possible.

What do you think of using the dilemma where one must choose between giving some medicine to either some random dying dog/puppy (which will permit the dog to return to full health and live out it's life) or to give it to a dying old man who is a stranger (which will extend the old man's life by one day)?

[Matt R.]

There was one in OOT regarding pushing a button to kill a random unknown person for 1 million dollars.

link (http://http://forumserver.twoplustwo.com/showflat.php?Cat=0&Number=6295083&page=0&fpart=1&v c=1)

I thought the answer was pretty clear, but judging by the voting and the responses in the thread others would disagree. I was definitely intrigued by the responses. If OOT is any indication, you'll get a heated debate going.

I like your dog/old man one too. There will always be people who think a person's life holds more value than an animal's under any and all circumstances, and there will be others who think that its crazy when the old man will only live for one more day. I think it will spark some good debate (I would go with the dog, personally, in case you were curious /images/graemlins/grin.gif).

[Phil153]

The man. Human life is more important than that of any animal. 24 billion chickens died last year so people could eat KFC.

Obviously his wishes are important too. For example if it was his puppy and he wanted to save it. But in the absence of other factors the man should be saved. Those who disagree should never eat KFC.

I think a more interesting question is how short the time frame would have to be before the dog's life became more important than the human's.

[Matt R.]

I disagree, and I occasionally eat KFC. I don't eat dogs.

[evolvedForm]

The man, because even if it is one day, it is more valuable than the dog's lifetime due to his vastly superior consciousness.

This brings up the inherent value debate, which would say that all sentient beings have inherent value because they do not want to be killed (Tom Regan). If this inherent value is the same for all creatures, i.e. if the criteria is 'not wanting to die' then the puppy and man are equal. This is nonsense. Depth of conscious/intellectual ability increases the value because it increases the being's awarness of life.

[Matt R.]

This is kind of true, however you have to assign some value to the length of time that the person or dog will remain alive, and I don't think you can really quantify a human's "vastly superior consciousness". It's a bit silly to say you would prefer that a 100 year old man live 1 more second versus a puppy living out its entire life.

One day is rather subjective. However, if I was in the position of the old man, I really wouldn't give a [censored] if I lived 24 more hours or not especially if I could sacrifice those 24 hours for the life of a puppy. You may say the inherent value of a dog is zero, but there are plenty of people out there whose joy is increased by owning a dog (not to mention the fact that regardless of a human's joy, the dog's life has some inherent value). If I were the old man, I would say 24 more hours tacked onto a long and fruitful life would mean next to nothing to me.

[_TKO_]

Run an OOT search on Chuck Klosterman.

[evolvedForm]

If the man has a choice, then sure, that overrides everything. But assuming he doesn't have a say in the matter, then it's up to you to make an 'objective' ethical decision. Since we don't know his opinion on the matter, I think we should give him the benefit of the doubt, because, if asked, he certainly would have an opinion. A puppy wouldn't.

And you say you wouldn't give a [censored], but I doubt that. 24 hours is a lot if it's all you've got left. It's an eternity. That said, (assuming you are the old man now) you could be easily persudaded to let the dog live. Heck, I might even do the same. The fact of the puppy adds a few extra dimensions though: to act selfishly would induce guilt; to act generously towards the puppy would make you feel better, and would perhaps give you joy. And it could fulfill a 'hero/martyr' fantasy.

Therefore, the ethical question shouldn't be up to the man, but to an observer.

I agree that time is a factor, but that gets sticky. Time is relative; I can live a month and find it has been a waste, while in a few hours I can have an epiphony that changes my life. So it's very subjective. Humans' ability to judge what's meaningful to them is a more important factor.

Time is a factor, but it plays more of a supporting role than a lead role. I agree that one second is not enough time to make saving a man worth killing a dog. But that's not because of time's inherent value. It's because of what consciousness can produce in one second's time - which usually isn't much.

[JMAnon]

Here is a good one, although I don't know if it has been debated here.


Start with this: Imagine you see a drowning baby. You can save the drowning baby only by ruining a $1000 pair of shoes. Are you morally obligated to save the baby?

Follow it up with this: Right now, you can save an African baby by sending $10 to a charitable organization for a Vitamin A shot. Are you morally obligated to save the baby?

[Nielsio]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm to choose an ethical dilemma for a college course, about which I must write a thorough essay. I've seen so much wonderful debate here and was wondering what recommendations you have. These dilemmas must be presented to class for debate and I want to see people gouging each other's eyes out over some issue, especially the two attractive chinese girls. Provide me with a link if possible.

What do you think of using the dilemma where one must choose between giving some medicine to either some random dying dog/puppy (which will permit the dog to return to full health and live out it's life) or to give it to a dying old man who is a stranger (which will extend the old man's life by one day)?

[/ QUOTE ]


I suggest you pick the morality of government. Much more volatile.

http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig6/molyneux7.html

"Simply put, the argument from morality is the most powerful approach to changing society because all major social decisions are made on the basis of ethics. If a population believes that a certain program is moral – i.e. war, welfare, social security and so on – then they may grumble, but they will also roll up their sleeves, get to work and support it no matter what their personal cost. Men will go off to war, mothers will turn their kids over to nannies, people will surrender massive portions of their income and freedom with nary a protest – all in the name of what is good.

Redefining "the good" is very, very hard. Throughout their lives, people make thousands of decisions based on certain moral principles – and it if turns out that those principles were wrong, then they will be forced to admit that their whole lives have been spent in the service of falsehood, or corruption, or evil – and that is more than most people can stomach. In order to preserve their illusions of goodness, they will fight any close examination of moral principles almost to the death!"

[hmkpoker]

About a year ago, this forum was David Sklansky's playground for posting questions in the form of "Would you rather eat a family member, or eat five random strangers?"

[MidGe]

[ QUOTE ]
About a year ago, this forum was David Sklansky's playground for posting questions in the form of "Would you rather eat a family member, or eat five random strangers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

If they are dead already, I see little difference! /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
About a year ago, this forum was David Sklansky's playground for posting questions in the form of "Would you rather eat a family member, or eat five random strangers?"

[/ QUOTE ]
Trouble is they were logic problems and nothing to do with ethics.

that's always the case with these types of issues. The ethical question is whether you should be a value utilitarian and if so which type and what values do you assign to certain things.

chez

[Zeno]

[ QUOTE ]
About a year ago, this forum was David Sklansky's playground for posting questions in the form of "Would you rather eat a family member, or eat five random strangers?"

[/ QUOTE ]

I hope the debate centered around the really important issues of whether to barbeque, oven roast, or slow cook in a pit, the people in question in addition to discussions on proper seasoning and flavorings.

Le Misanthrope