The ultimate ethical dilemma


Samson Corwell

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 125
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

X-ray wrote "But the reverse does not apply: for irrational beliefs and actions are not automatically immoral."

Give one example of irrational action which wouldn't be immoral, that is- bad to the perpetrator or to other people in the short or long range.

"Here, hold my beer. This is gonna be awesome."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Women have been rationally acting irrationally for ages. Man smart, woman smarter!

--Brant

A kernel of truth in that. Why do you think it is so? Do you think it

has to be so? This interests me.

If I'm not stepping in it I'd guess it has to do with learned emotional intelligence. Being generally weaker and smaller than men they have to use all their brains for sheer survival and men are necessary for that. Men go from great killing machines to something much more human when they hitch up with a woman in a loving relationship and all those kids make a family he's biologically geared to protect and care for along with his spouse. Ironically this makes him an even more effective and deadly warrior and hunter--and producer come the agrarian-industrial-capitalist-innovation societies. While maternalism tends to deny women the expressed geniuses they have the brains for, the emotional rewards of having and raising children are so much greater than inventing a new something they let the guy do it with little competition from them.

--Brant

now, how much bs can you see in my post?--study the picture very closely

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

Women have been rationally acting irrationally for ages. Man smart, woman smarter!

--Brant

A kernel of truth in that. Why do you think it is so? Do you think it

has to be so? This interests me.

If I'm not stepping in it I'd guess it has to do with learned emotional intelligence. Being generally weaker and smaller than men they have to use all their brains for sheer survival and men are necessary for that. Men go from great killing machines to something much more human when they hitch up with a woman in a loving relationship and all those kids make a family he's biologically geared to protect and care for along with his spouse. Ironically this makes him an even more effective and deadly warrior and hunter--and producer come the agrarian-industrial-capitalist-innovation societies. While maternalism tends to deny women the expressed geniuses they have the brains for, the emotional rewards of having and raising children are so much greater than inventing a new something they let the guy do it with little competition from them.

--Brant

now, how much bs can you see in my post?--study the picture very closely

No, Brant, no bs that I can see. Yes, it pretty much gels with my perception.

To be more accurate, my perception of perceptions at large.

A few things for now: "Weaker and smaller" doesn't count much any more - tools

have leveled women out with men - stating the obvious.

'Letting' "the guy do it with little competition" is interesting.

Emotional intelligence (so-called) is most pertinent to what I'm getting at

earlier. Personally, I think EI is something of a non-concept.

Either way it is not anything denied to men - just as women are not denied their

"expressed genius". (Or should not be.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A belief is not an action. The trust in God will not bring the loved one back.

According to Objectivist principles, the belief in god is irrational. According the the premsie that the irrational is always immoral, the belief must be "immoral" then.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even In prehistorical context "Drag her back" is a wrong perception. There was a matriarchal society in caves ,women ruled and choose their mates.

That prehistorical women lived in caves does not mean that they ruled in them and chose their mates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Even In prehistorical context "Drag her back" is a wrong perception. There was a matriarchal society in caves ,women ruled and choose their mates.

That prehistorical women lived in caves does not mean that they ruled in them and chose their mates.

There is an ongoing fascinating discourse of anthropologists about this. Feminist anthros have made radical propositions for matriarchy in prehistoric times, and mythology confirms it to some extent. But the most scientific studies seem to show a balance of powers depending on local conditions.

This is why I love historical, and pre-historical fiction.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A belief is not an action. The trust in God will not bring the loved one back.

According to Objectivist principles, the belief in god is irrational. According the the premise that the irrational is always immoral, the belief must be "immoral" then.

That is neither an Objectivist principle--much less principles--nor premise. A conclusion is not a principle and the irrational may be irrational irrational or rational irrational plus countless possible existential complexities and consequences.

--Brant

the innocence of savages (Rand)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

X-ray wrote "But the reverse does not apply: for irrational beliefs and actions are not automatically immoral."

Give one example of irrational action which wouldn't be immoral, that is- bad to the perpetrator or to other people in the short or long range.

For example, to some people who have lost loved ones in a terrbible tragedy, the hope they might be with god now may be irrational, but can still give them comfort, and even strength to carry on with their lives.

Or a more mundane example: each time I pack my suitcases for a trip, it is the same: I pack way too much stuff I won't need, my way of packing is pretty irrational, one could say. But it is no immoral action. Nor is the consequence 'bad'. I just squeezed in too much stuff, that's all.

I could list many more examples.

What speaks against dropping the "irrational = immoral" equation? This still would leave enough for rationality, without the rigidity of judging every irrational act as immoral.

Aside from that - frankly, what's so bad about some irrational 'whims' to enjoy now and then? Isn't it often those whims that add pizzazz and fun to life?

:smile:

A belief is not an action. The trust in God will not bring the loved one back. Packing for trip too much is hardly irrational, but big excess of things you packed may make your trip very uncomfortable. The fact is you are complaining about this proves that it's bad for you.

Leon,

I must stand up in support of inveterate 'over-packers' everywhere!!

It might be that Xray packs an evening gown and full make up, on the smallish

possibility of being invited to an Opera. It may be that I over-pack because

there's a possibility I like the place so much, I extend my trip, which has

happened. These aren't illogical.

I'm getting at your point of anything remotely illogical (I think this is more

the preserve of the 'sensible' anyway) being bad for you. When they may only be "quirks" an eccentricity or a personality foible. Sure, one does/should look at the little things and examine one's premises. "An unexamined life..."etc.

(Eg. I came to a partial conclusion that I have a psychological need to take my home with me on travels; a need for security, perhaps.)

Once examined and recognized I can change my behavior. Again, maybe I won't

If it gives one a certain amount of benefit,comfort and security, it must surely

be rational, though not fully 'logical'.

There exist 100's of small things about one that are "illogical", but harmless.

Rationality, in my view, is all-encompassing of the complete human being, with

reason at his-her head. (Hmm.)

Or else this plays into Xray's Dichotomy of logic/emotion.

I also pack a lot and then suffer. One tries to anticipate all eventualities, in fact aspires for omniscience and prescience. It is irrational and bad for you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A belief is not an action. The trust in God will not bring the loved one back.

According to Objectivist principles, the belief in god is irrational. According the the premise that the irrational is always immoral, the belief must be "immoral" then.

That is neither an Objectivist principle--much less principles--nor premise. A conclusion is not a principle and the irrational may be irrational irrational or rational irrational plus countless possible existential complexities and consequences.

--Brant

the innocence of savages (Rand)

Belief is not an action. Ethical principals are applicable to actions, not to beliefs. If actions are guided by irrational beliefs, they are bad. If you pray in front of the running truck instead to run away you are dead or badly injured-always. The principle of " black swan" is not applicable to the ethical problems because it pertains to inductive thinking ( all swans are white). Here we are dealing with deductive conclusion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A belief is not an action. The trust in God will not bring the loved one back.

According to Objectivist principles, the belief in god is irrational. According the the premise that the irrational is always immoral, the belief must be "immoral" then.

That is neither an Objectivist principle--much less principles--nor premise. A conclusion is not a principle and the irrational may be irrational irrational or rational irrational plus countless possible existential complexities and consequences.

--Brant

the innocence of savages (Rand)

Belief is not an action. Ethical principals are applicable to actions, not to beliefs. If actions are guided by irrational beliefs, they are bad. If you pray in front of the running truck instead to run away you are dead or badly injured-always. The principle of " black swan" is not applicable to the ethical problems because it pertains to inductive thinking ( all swans are white). Here we are dealing with deductive conclusion.

What you are selling I'm not buying, but I can't keep repeating myself. Let me just say your inductive-deductive conflict merely means an incorrect statement of premises. The "black swan" only means "black" was wrongly considered from the get-go to be properly a part of a swan's definition. Similarly, "rational" is not properly part of the definition of "bad action" and "irrational" not part of the definition of "good action" unless they're referencing a thinking as such. If you say a shotgun wedding cannot result in a loving marriage because it came from daddy's coercion, I say people and life are much more complicated--and interesting--than your conclusion.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, rational is not part of definition of good action, it is its epistemic foundation. It seems that you don't recognize a hierarchical connection between epistemology and ethics. Nevertheless it exists, unlike connection between shotgun wedding and loving marriage.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, rational is not part of definition of good action, it is its epistemic foundation. It seems that you don't recognize a hierarchical connection between epistemology and ethics. Nevertheless it exists, unlike connection between shotgun wedding and loving marriage.

I'd guess the connection would be within a person but the result would be social and not so. So we're both right and just need more complete statements, or you plus me? I see epistemology as the base of ethics. Morality may be more biological and organic and complicated. I'm not saying there's not a lot of overlap between the two, but they are different concepts.

--Brant

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yes, rational is not part of definition of good action, it is its epistemic foundation. It seems that you don't recognize a hierarchical connection between epistemology and ethics. Nevertheless it exists, unlike connection between shotgun wedding and loving marriage.

Ultimately, it is the potential of a shotgun wedding that cannot be discarded as a possibility. And there might just be an example of it somewhere. In other words, the question empirical existence of such does not preclude the thinking about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...

You are presented with two buttons. If you press the red button, someone close to you dies. If you push the blue button, a random person dies. If you press neither within a certain amount of time both die. What to do?

My reaction might be to let the timer run out, cause I cannot knowingly condemn someone to death by my actions. If someone did opt to press the red button, I would not blame them, but I might not call it ethical.

I would press Blue At least one person is going to die and I do not want to know who it is. It might be a bad person. In any case, doing nothing is the worst of the three choices.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I've been thinking about this a bit more and it seems to me that in tweaked variations of this problem, inaction would be the most moral choice.

Why?

--Brant

Well, first off, I need to clarify that in the above case I was thinking of the variation of the trolley problem that involves the fat man--the one where you push a very fat man off a bridge to stop a trolley (If they are that fat, how could you push them to begin with?). The thing the with fat man man is that the person is acting directly to make the man fall off the bridge and onto the tracks. The person would be sacrificing the fat man. However, in the real world, there are many more things you can do.

Now, with the problem that I outlined in this thread, I'm having trouble and more specifics (like what's doing the killing) would lead to a clearer conclusion. It seems like the blue button might be the way to go.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are presented with two buttons. If you press the red button, someone close to you dies. If you push the blue button, a random person dies. If you press neither within a certain amount of time both die. What to do?

My reaction might be to let the timer run out, because I cannot knowingly condemn someone to death by my actions. If someone did opt to press the red button, I would not blame them, but I might not call it ethical.

How about this variation. You have a slice of bread, and you are presented with 2 starving children, one a stranger's child, the other your sister's child whom you dearly love. If you give the bread to the stranger's child, your niece or nephew dies -- if you give the bread to your own child, the stranger's child dies -- if you do nothing, both children die.

Think of the hunger of the stranger's child and your sister's child as being analogous to the red and blue buttons, and giving the bread to one or the other as pressing the red or blue button, and giving the bread to neither as not pressing either button.

Now, you can only save one child's life by giving him/her the bread, but in so doing you "condemn" the other child to death -- and if you don't give either child the bread, you "condemn" both children to death. Your inaction will cause both children to die, while acting will cause one of them to die and save the other. Are you morally in the clear, if you choose to give the bread to the child you like better? (Remember, you have no legal obligation to support or save either child.)

REB

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ethical to do so much thinking and no acting?

--Brant

do something fer God's sake!

What is so much or too much?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it ethical to do so much thinking and no acting?

--Brant

do something fer God's sake!

What is so much or too much?

Push a button!

--Brant

I don't get it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now