BluffThis and Chezlaw's Weird Philosophical Contortions

[Phil153]

[ QUOTE ]
2) If we are being forced to make these decisions, there could be a time when we have to pick something we are morally/philosophically opposed to. You can't force BluffThis and Chezlaw to pick something and then yell at them for making a contortion. You asked them to contort!

[/ QUOTE ]
No, but if they use flawed or demonstratively absurd reasoning, then you can yell at them. Or at least point out that something is wrong or inconsistent in the way they make tough decisions. Enter Sklansky.

And so many decisions are contortions. The stem cell debate has moral and philosophical objections no matter what side you choose. If you can't get to a position with some modicum of consistency (or worse, if you claim consistency and logical supremacy for arbitrary and inconsistent positions, a la BluffTHIS!), then you should be exposed.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
BluffThis and chezlaw think that you, the president, upon hearing this new information (at least in its original formulation) should order the attack to be stopped.

[/ QUOTE ]
what on earth make you think I think that.

chez

[Ben K]

Could I venture that this is the difference between accomplises and bystanders.

The 8 are bystanders and not required for the kill. They're just unfortunately in the wrong place at the time. Much like the guy on the other train track when you divert the carriage to avoid 5 other guys (it's ok). You're not taking an active decision to kill them.

The 5 are accomplises in the killing. You are taking an active decision to kill them because this is how you know he's not in the shelter. Much like pushing a guy into the carriages path to stop it killing 5 guys (not ok).

I'm not advocating a personal opinion either way but you asked for an explanation and I think this is it - more easily seen when moved back to the trusty carriage on a track thought experiments. BluffThis and chezlaw may not agree with me of course.

[ZeeJustin]

As far as I'm concerned, there is only one possible logical explanation for BT and CZ's line of choices.

You can argue that non-optimal rules should be followed for the sake of greater overall benefit in the longterm.

Torture is a good example. If we ever get Osama in custody, maybe torture would be the right choice to get maximum info. However, it is also the best choice for the US to take a stance against torture (obviously this is debatable). Personally, I think it's best to ban torture, while still occasionally doing it illegally in extremely pressing scenarios, but you could logically argue that the rule should often be followed even in cases where it's -ev, provided that +ev choices will be made far more often.

Afterall, BT is simply going by a set of guidelines that isn't always optimal. On the other hand, if he argued that it always was, then that's a horse of a different (illogical) color.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
It has been decided that five kids is acceptable for a high priority target. The logic starts from there. And you're on crack if you don't think that killing 8 kids is a lot worse than 5.

[/ QUOTE ]
but is DS on crack for this post, his got me wrong and I'd be suprised if Bluffthis! aborted the raid either.

bluffthis! has distinguished between the objective of the act and its inevitable comsequences and I agreed with him that there is a difference between an act whose goal is to kill X and an act that's goal is Y that requires killing X (different doesn't imply better or worse). That seems irrelevent here so maybe its something else he misunderstood (misunderstood doesn't imply it was clear)

Maybe DS will elucidate. I notice he has a get out clause for me but I hope his right about bluffthis! because i'd have guessed he'd bomb the 8 then bomb the other 5 just to make sure.

chez

[chezlaw]

I'll have to eat humble pie having now found the thread you were referring to. My response in that thread was a mistaken.

chez

[the_scalp]

David,

You're like the annoying student in ethics class.

Hard case makes bad law. This is not at all analagous to stem cell research.

What you are arguing with is what is called the principle of double effect. Basically, Catholic canon lawers have long held that you can take an action which forseeable, evil consequences ONLY if the following conditions are met (stolen from Wikipedia):

1) The nature of the act is itself good.
2) The intention is for the good effect and not the bad.
3) The good effect outweighs the bad effect in a situation sufficiently grave to merit the risk of yielding the bad effect.
4) The good effect (killing the dictator) is not directly dependent on the bad effect (killing the children).

Your hypothetical case with the five children sticks at criterion 4. You seem to think this is obviously illogical. If you're operating as a strict utilitarian, you're absolutely right, but in that case you wouldn't need the principle of double effect to gauge the morality of suspect actions -- you'd only needed to ask whether the fruits of the act justified the negative consequences.

I guess what I'm saying is, your argument boils down to this:

1) Posters claim to not be utilitarians in another thread.
2) Look at this extremely unlikely hypothetical situation where they're clearly not acting as utiltiarians!!!
3) . . .
4) Profit!

[RJT]

If I understand the questions – once you decide that innocent children are allowed to be killed for “the greater good” all ethics go out the window. Do wtf you want.

No innocents should ever be killed for the greater good – that would be a contradiction. The innocents are the greater good.

Quote from phil153:

[ QUOTE ]
And you're on crack if you don't think that killing 8 kids is a lot worse than 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you decide that one can be killed, then 5 and 8 become relatively meaningless. At that point we compare 1,5, or 8 to millions of people who we think we are saving. 1,5, or 8 are immaterial relative to millions or billions of “the greater good”. I don’t get your point, phil.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand the questions – once you decide that innocent children are allowed to be killed for “the greater good” all ethics go out the window. Do wtf you want.

No innocents should ever be killed for the greater good – that would be a contradiction. The innocents are the greater good.

Quote from phil153:

[ QUOTE ]
And you're on crack if you don't think that killing 8 kids is a lot worse than 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you decide that one can be killed, then 5 and 8 become relatively meaningless. At that point we compare 1,5, or 8 to millions of people who we think we are saving. 1,5, or 8 are immaterial relative to millions or billions of “the greater good”. I don’t get your point, phil.

[/ QUOTE ]

Plane is in the air with a bomb. We have three actions to choose from -

1) return plane to hanger. 100,000 kids die.
2) hit target A. 5 kids die.
3) hit target X. 8 kids die.

How is this a problem? We actually get a choice about which consequences of our actions we can ignore? That allows us to justify any action. How that can be a moral way to exist seems delusional.

Oh, well, I knew the omission-commission claim would come up to justify horrid choices.

luckyme

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
If I understand the questions – once you decide that innocent children are allowed to be killed for “the greater good” all ethics go out the window. Do wtf you want.

No innocents should ever be killed for the greater good – that would be a contradiction. The innocents are the greater good.

Quote from phil153:

[ QUOTE ]
And you're on crack if you don't think that killing 8 kids is a lot worse than 5.

[/ QUOTE ]

Once you decide that one can be killed, then 5 and 8 become relatively meaningless. At that point we compare 1,5, or 8 to millions of people who we think we are saving. 1,5, or 8 are immaterial relative to millions or billions of “the greater good”. I don’t get your point, phil.

[/ QUOTE ]
exactly what I'd missed in the previous post - that we'd already decided it was worth killing innocent kids.

Don't think I can agree that in extreme circumstances like war that its never worth killing innocents but war is a breakdown of ethics anyway.

chez