posted
I posted this hypothetical in another thread, and it’s stuck with me, so I’m giving it it’s own thread now. When looking at the two scenarios below, think of your immediate reaction to each before trying to analyze why you think that way. Also, assume that any actions taken are done so voluntarily and with no question of insanity or emotional state.
Background
There’s a well known joke about two guys running into a bear in the woods. They start running, and one guy says, “What are we doing? We can’t outrun a bear.” The other guy replies, “I don’t have to outrun the bear. I only have to outrun you.”
Suppose Person A and B are in the woods. A is much faster than B; both know this. They meet a bear, who charges them. This is a humongous bear, it is faster than both A and B, and neither A nor B has a weapon of any kind. There are no clever McGyver tricks that will save either one.
Scenario 1
Suppose B, knowing he’s far slower than A, kicked A hard in the knee so he could outrun A. This allows B to escape. I think most people would think B has done something morally reprehensible and likely criminal as well.
Scenario 2
However, suppose A and B turn to run. A outruns B. While the bear is killing B, A gains enough distance to escape. Although most people would think it brave had A charged the bear to try to save B, few people would think A did anything morally wrong in fleeing and saving his own life.
The Question
Why do most people have this reaction? I’m interested for several reasons. First, I think many people have a fairly reliable moral compass that will produce “correct” moral decisions for which the reasons cannot be readily explained. Second, I’m very interested in why there is a general bias to examining actions rather than the outcome in judging morality. It’s not that outcomes are ignored, but that actions that produce identical outcomes can have different moral foundations. I find this curious.
On a deeper level, it means that humans will be penalized in survivability based on what their natural gifts are. If someone is a fast runner, they have an advantage in escaping bears. If someone is sneaky and can kick human knees well, the advantage can’t be used in a moral fashion to escape from bears.
By the way, if anyone had different immediate reactions than what I described above, please explain. I’d be fascinated to see how correct my general impressions are on this.
Dagonee P.S., I’m not interested in this topic because my knees could be used to make scary door sound effects in horror movies. Really.
P.P.S. Anyone want to go camping? Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the idea that B kicking A in the kneecaps is morally wrong because it is through direct action on the part of B that A dies. In the second senario, there is nothing that A does _to_ B that means he ends up being the bear's lunch (it's not like he ties him to a tree and then runs off).
Posts: 5879 | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I agree, that's where the difference lies. But this skips the real question. Why is direct action such an important factor? It's a concept I can't quite articulate, but have floating around somewhere in my brain.
posted
True, but actions that harm others are allowed in certain instances. Self defense is the obvious example, although it's different in that the aggressor's actions initiate the ultimate harm to him. But there are situations where someone is allowed to harm an innocent person to preserve their own life.
For example, in some instances person A could get away with shooting an innocent victim if a criminal threatened to shoot A if he didn't. But tripping B to make the bear get him instead of A probably wouldn't pass this justification defense.
Also, most societies don't require some actions that would be beneficial to its members, such as imposing a duty to rescue when there's no risk to the rescuer.
I'm not disagreeing with you; I'm trying to take the analysis to a further level and heighten the distinctions.
Let's refine it with another hypothetical. Suppose two men fall overboard, and there's a plank in the ocean only one person can fit on. Person A reaches it first. Has he done anything wrong if he refuses to share the plank at enormous risk to his life? Has B done anything wrong if he takes the plank from A?
posted
It's a fascinating question, and as I type this I haven't formulated an answer yet. But I will take a stab at it, thinking as I go.
We are assuming that A is naturally a faster runner than B, is that correct? Is this something both of them are distinctly aware of?
I suppose we could examine this more closely by changing the severity of the circumstances to, say, performance in a class graded on a curve. (Where only so many people can get certain grades.) In such an environment, competition is hurtful in a similar sort of way, though not in a life-threatening way.
If A is a better performer than B, no one faults him for B's lower grade. But if B somehow tries to sabatoge A's work thus putting himself ahead of A, he has altered the nature of the situation, the parameters, to harm A.
So basically, if nature favors A, we do not blame A for it. But if B sabotages A because he knows he is at a natural disadvantage, this is viewed as bad.
Am I getting anywhere near the answer?
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
My initial solution was that A and B should run in different directions, increasing the "not-my-fault" feeling.
Posts: 1261 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Perhaps there is a heirarchy of goodness here, with B (the weaker element) sabatoging A as being most wrong, A using his natural advantage to the detriment of B as not quite as wrong, but A doing all he can to lift or save B (in the school class example, A could help B study) being the most noble of all.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:So basically, if nature favors A, we do not blame A for it. But if B sabotages A because he knows he is at a natural disadvantage, this is viewed as bad.
Am I getting anywhere near the answer?
I think so, beverly. This scenario first popped into my mind in response to something CT wrote about the illogic of believing full human personhood attaches at conception, because there's little concern for the 40-70% of fertilized eggs that fail to implant.
Resolving this portion of the problem only gets me halfway to preparing a coherent response to that, but I can't proceed until I figure out why something being the natural outcome is somehow morally preferable.
quote:My initial solution was that A and B should run in different directions, increasing the "not-my-fault" feeling.
I'd like that answer if I were in "computer programmer thinking outside the box" mode, but I'm in "moral and ethical philosopher" mode, so I'll add a further assumption that there's only one safe direction.
posted
I think for the religious, there is the idea that we are held accountable for our actions. If we could have helped someone and didn't, we will feel the weight of that in the eternities when the great balance is made.
Posts: 7050 | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
That's why I had this scenario try to be clear that A can't really help B - he could choose to die with him, or possibly instead of him, but not save B and himself.
Clearly, many (but not all - see Ayn Rand) would consider A sacrificing himself to be a noble act. But few would think it's morally required, especially when you consider that B would then have the moral obligation to sacrifice himself for A.
posted
You see these sort of scenarios in movies an awful lot, since they don't crop up so often in life and they make for a good action scene.
One person says, "Go on without me! Save yourself!"
The other says, "No! I won't leave you!"
Sometimes they stay and save the other guy by some miracle, sometimes they go ahead and save themselves when they see there is no way to help. But it is rare (if ever) that the movie then depicts them dying together.
But in "movie morality" it seems requisit that the other who can get away at least tries to stay behind with the less fortunate one. There must be at least the "apperance of nobility."
posted
Not trying to turn this into a Rand thread, but...
quote: Clearly, many (but not all - see Ayn Rand) would consider A sacrificing himself to be a noble act.
quote: That's why I had this scenario try to be clear that A can't really help B - he could choose to die with him, or possibly instead of him, but not save B and himself.
If A KNOWS that he can not really help B, and that it would mean the death of both of them, how is it noble for him to die? The only possible benefit in that scenerio is that A wouldn't have to live with the guilt of leaving a man behind. I see this as cowardly, foolish, and lacking in any virtue whatsoever.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
quote: On a deeper level, it means that humans will be penalized in survivability based on what their natural gifts are. If someone is a fast runner, they have an advantage in escaping bears. If someone is sneaky and can kick human knees well, the advantage can’t be used in a moral fashion to escape from bears.
I think the difference lies not in what gifts someone is given, but in what way they are being used. By tripping A, B is using his sneaky gifts destructively towards others. If B truly wanted to use his sneaky gifts in a constructive manner, he could attempt to trip the bear and avert danger. Or climb a tree, or anything constructive. By running, A is not being destructive or constructive, but a moral neutral.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
The difference in killing and Murder. Killing is the act of taking a life without any reference to the circumstance. Murder is the taking of a life for selfish reasons.
Direct action takes the connotation of responsibility versus "act of nature." We had this argument on another thread - if we let the inevitable run it's course, we can't be held directly accountable. If we take move proactively, we are altering the course of natural events and must take responsibility or assume accountability for our actions.
And in your scenario, subject A might run away while subject B is eaten - but if B is a woman or a child, A's lack of action can be just as damning as any direct action.
I refer you to the "most amoral man in America" case - a friend who walks away while his buddy drags a girl into a rest room. The "friend" does not have an affirmative responsibility in the legal sense, but his failure to act has garnered outrage from a number of sources.
Another wrinkle - doctors and legitimate (licensed) medical personnel who do not render aid and assistance can be penalized, thereby assigning certain people an affirmative responsibility and punishment when they fail to act in the affirmative.
If you've managed to read to this point, thanks -> and I won't swear to having made sense.
quote:If A KNOWS that he can not really help B, and that it would mean the death of both of them, how is it noble for him to die?
That's not what's been proposed - If A attacks the bear and B runs, B will survive, because the bear will spend enough time mauling A to allow B to live. That's why many would consider it a noble act.
quote:By the way, you aren't going to outrun a bear. B has a better chance of surviving than A does at this point.
No one's outrunning the bear. The idea is that the bear will stop pursuing one once it catches the other.
quote:B tells A: "I heard the best way to defend yourself is to assume the fetal position."
Now A and B are not friends or anything, so A has absolutely no reason to believe B. However, B is a natuarl liar and A buys B's story.
Is this better or worse than B kicking A in the knees?
This is a good twist to the hypo. Do people consider this to be as amoral as actively tripping the bear?
In our commonly accepted society, self-sacrifice is noble. I note "our commonly accepted society" because not everyone would agree.
I added the commment about not outrunning the bear to illustrate the sneakiness of B telling A to keep running, knowing it's impossible of A to outrun the bear while B curls up.
That's not a twist as you're supposed to assume the fetal position.
And yes, I said that was as immoral as tripping as you are taking deliberate action in creating a consequence.
posted
If B tells A to run, and A does while B does not, A will survive, B will die, because the bear will spend some time playing with B in the fetal position.
The fetal position is the best way to survive a bear attack because you can't outrun it. But it's not like it leaves you a good chance of surviving without serious injuries.
If the bear's not chasing you, then you're not outrunning it.
By the way, people have been killed by mountain lions they probably could have fought off because they used the bear technique and curled into a fetal position. That just makes the mountain lion happy. They'll usually run if they're not famished and you make it difficult and/or painful for them to keep attacking.
posted
I think that there are two ethical questions here and that you can look at them independently.
The first is: "Who has more right to survive the bear attack." I think that the answer to this is that neither A nor B has more legitimate claim to survival. Because of this belief, I think that it is not morally reprehensible for either A or B to attempt to survive.
The second ethical question is: "What action taken to effect survival are ethical?" In this case I think it is appropriate to use your social norms to decide if actions are ethical. Face it, there are a broad range of actions available. We've explored each just running, B injuring A, B lying to A. But really, based on our social mores, there is a graduation of how ethical these behaviors might be. B could outright kill A and get the same result, ie. the bear stop to eat A. I would say that this is less ethical than the lying technique.
So, I think that the reason my first response to the scenario is that it is unethical for B to kick A in the knee is that I would rather have A as a member of my society because he did not choose to injure another citizen for his own personal gain.
However, upon reflection I don't see it as unethical for B to attempt to survive the situation.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
Do morals and ethics have meaning outside the context of encouraging social norms?
For example, let's say A and B were the last two people on earth. They are both guys, so there is no hope of them rekindling human society Adam and Eve style.
Would it still be unethical for B to kick or lie to A?
Posts: 4116 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
It doesn't matter, unless you think that the winner is going to mate with the bear!
Only one of A and B can survive. Which has more right to survival? In my mind, neither has more right. In the case that you pose, the end result is going to be a society of one, so in my mind the second of my ethical dilemmas never comes into play. Only the first matters and my answer is survive any way you can. The right to life is your first and only right at that time.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
I don't think I meant that. I may have spoken hastily. I believe A and B have an equal claim to their right to life.
Now I don't dispute that in a society of peers just about any action that B will take to survive would be "immoral". However, when no society will exist after the fact why does it matter? Who is left to judge B for his or her actions?
Different answers to these questions will lead one to have different views about the "morality" of B's actions; however my answers are based on the premise that there will be noone left to judge B. Also bear in mind that this is specifically aimed at Beren's situation, not a generic situation where A or B will still have to answer for their actions to a civil society.
I certainly don't believe that B's right to life puts a burden on A to grant his survival as has been suggested above.
p.s. I haven't discussed / debated ethics like this a lot, so if I'm being a jerk please don't keep it to yourself. I promise not to be offended if you call me out for missing something obvious (or subtle for that matter).
My take is that self defense is a justification for killing another human. Is B's survival self defense?
With the bear out of the equation what avenues does B have for self defense from physical harm from A?
All I'm trying to argue is that B has the right to self defense. I'm not trying to argue that in any situation the ends justify the means. I do, however, believe that in the case of self defense everything up to and including killing is acceptable as long as it is the only alternative.
Posts: 270 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe that a person has no right to commit suicide. However, risking your life to save another's is acceptible (but never required). Thus, if you will almost certainly both die if you stay and/or attack the bear, that would be a stupid waste. However, if you staying is likely to save the other person (and maybe you as well?), I would consider that noble but not morally required. Nor should you bear any guilt if you chose not to do so.
As far as outrunning the bear, let's look at the alternative. If you don't run, it quickly becomes tantamount to making the choice to sacrifice yourself.
So I would run. And since most people could outrun me, I'd get eaten.
quote:rubble said: p.s. I haven't discussed / debated ethics like this a lot, so if I'm being a jerk please don't keep it to yourself. I promise not to be offended if you call me out for missing something obvious (or subtle for that matter).
You’re absolutely not being a jerk – this is exactly the kind of discussion I was trying to create. It goes back to the fact that I think there’s a form of moral intuition that leads us to view certain actions as right or wrong without being able to articulate the reasons, at least without a lot of thought.
You stated something that could suggest outcome based morality. When I pointed this out, you clarified. I do find it interesting that almost no one so far is happy with outcome-based morality.
An outcome based morality could be described that meets Trevor’s “end justifies means” question, simply by making sure that interim outcomes are accounted for. But no one seems comfortable doing this. I know I don’t. What I’m trying to do is understand why, and every post in this discussion is helping.
quote: All I'm trying to argue is that B has the right to self defense. I'm not trying to argue that in any situation the ends justify the means. I do, however, believe that in the case of self defense everything up to and including killing is acceptable as long as it is the only alternative.
OK, but self defense usually implies that the person being harmed is the one who created the risk to life being defended against. Someone tries to stab me, and I shoot him, I have defended myself. But in this scenario, the person being harmed is not the one who created the danger. I can’t quite tell from above – are you saying B’s kick is morally OK if there is no larger society, but immoral if there is a society to return to?
quote:rivka said: I believe that a person has no right to commit suicide. However, risking your life to save another's is acceptible (but never required). Thus, if you will almost certainly both die if you stay and/or attack the bear, that would be a stupid waste. However, if you staying is likely to save the other person (and maybe you as well?), I would consider that noble but not morally required. Nor should you bear any guilt if you chose not to do so.
As far as outrunning the bear, let's look at the alternative. If you don't run, it quickly becomes tantamount to making the choice to sacrifice yourself.
So I would run. And since most people could outrun me, I'd get eaten.
Sometimes it sucks to be me.
This is exactly where I am. I assume you consider the kick to be immoral, as do I. I get as far as “The kick is a positive act which the actor knows will cause great harm.” But I can’t get articulate why the positive act is the determining factor.
And I bet you could outrun me.
quote:TMedina said: ------------------------------------------------- quote:Is it always immoral to kill? -------------------------------------------------
Nope.
I agree entirely, and I think it’s wrapped up in the self defense analysis, but I can’t untangle why it’s not OK here.
posted
Um...because it just is? Or that's how contemporary society has moved in terms of the social dynamic?
When we look at the definition of Murder, we are evaluating the circumstances and motivations under which a person kills.
There are situations in which a person is sacrificed for the greater whole - the lowest ranking member of a squad is ordered to take off his or her CB gear to determine if the area is free of contaminants.
I suppose the simple fact is - I don't know. I submit not everyone would find the idea of sacrificing someone else to save themselves repugnant or distasteful. If a man sacrificed someone smaller or weaker than himself, society may be less forgiving - but that would depend on the audience.
posted
Maybe the reason why this doesn't disturb me is that I am used to looking at actions as far more significant than than thoughts. Motivations matter, but actions matter more.
Actively ACTING in a way that a priori reduces the likelihood of survival of someone else is far different than acting in a way whose primary goal is saving your own life (and secondarily leaving someone else behind as bait ).
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
It doesn't disturb me - I'm very comfortable with the moral conclusion. It's just that I've identified a large area in my moral reasoning that I can't explain adequately, and it's an area with very important ramifications in other actions than bear-baiting.
posted
With respect Dag, your moral reasoning is a product of social pressure.
Whether you were taught your set of values by the Church, by your parents, by your peers, by your experiences and conclusions or any combination thereof, your moral reasoning has outside factors.
You are questioning, if I understand the point of this thread correctly, the how and why you came to have this particular set of moral values.
Why do we pick up habits and quirks? There are reasons which we may not be fully aware of - although if we look back with a complete accounting of our lives, we might be able to discern key points where we picked up trait A or habit B.
Just random thoughts that might or might not apply to you.
posted
I'm aware of that, but I'm trying to develop the reasoning which says why this is a valid moral statement. I realize ultimately this must go back to first principles, and maybe the first principle is that harm caused by direct application of force is more culpable than harm caused by abandonment. I'm just trying to see if I can peel another layer off it.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I honestly don't think there is another layer.
Society may have developed these definitions for it's own reasons - why did Chivalry develop? Why did it become popular and therefore socially accepted to defend the weak?
By understanding these social trends, will you feel you've acquired a sufficiently thorough answer to your question?
You can continue to ask "why?" and eventually the answer will be, "just because."
posted
Yes (Edit: To Rivka), but the running away by B was an action that doomed B, yet we (me included) categorize that as failing to act to help. Is the meat of the distinction the fact that this is what A would have done if B had not been there, even though it likely wouldn't have helped? Or is there something more.
posted
It doesn't directly doom B. It may indirectly do so. But the action (running away) acts to save A, and only dooms B based on B's actions.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I believe each person has a right and responsibility to take care of their own life and health, Trevor. So I don't view living up to that responsibility as cowardice.
Posts: 32919 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Evil]](graemlins/evil.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Razz]](tongue.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
