Ethics of Emergencies

I dislike the idea of absolute nonviolence because I believe that the sanctity of life applies to my own life as well, but in this particular situation, with no other knowledge being given, I do not believe it would be morally correct to take it (to be honest, I'm not sure how great my will would be in actuality). This is for several reasons:

1) The most practical: I'm a better swimmer then most people I know. So I would have a better chance of surviving without it.

2) The Negative Consequentialist Take: He has the plank in the first place, and to remove it from him would be to initiate violence and cause pain to another where if I did not, this would not occur, and the same amount of life would or would not be saved.So yes, if it were two people racing towards the same plank, and I happened to be faster, that would change it for me, but I don't know whether it would actually change my final decision.

3) The Utilitarianism Take: Personally, if I took it from him and survived, I would feel really bad. Most probably worse than if someone else had just kept it, as would I have forced someone off of it, directly leading to their death.

4) An I-don't-know-what-to-call it-take: Here comes the Sunday paper. Do I want to be the kid who desperately clung to life at the expense of another human being, or the person who could defy his most basic of instincts to let him live on? True I'd never write my great collection of philosophical books, but I'd live on, and in a positive way. The boy who I let live at my own expense would remember me, his family, and so on. I would have died leaving the world a little happier.

As I read this thing, strongly reminded me of Nietzsche and his idea that telling the strong to be meek is as useless as telling the meek to be strong. Dunno, just saying.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Arjuna wrote:
And for the saving of extra syllables necessary to say "he or she," many people do accept "they." Living languages evolve.

Languages do evolve, but this wasn't a case where he/she was correct either ("You and another person" is simply not "they", "he" or "she") so an alternative for it is going to be just as incorrect. "He and she" isn't acceptable as substitutes for "you" (which was the right word to use according to his narrative mode) and you saves just as many syllables. He just lost track of narrative mode and that is a simple mistake anyone can make and this really isn't about linguistic prescriptivism and living languages.

These are great lengths to go to to defend a simple mistake that even the most pedantic purists could make so I think I might have completely exhausted my formidable supply of pedantry on this so far. He made a mistake, no it's not a living language kind of mistake, just a simple, obvious, would-have-been-smarter-to-just-cop-to kind of mistake that was only drawn out by adding to the mistake with the living languages excuse for it.

Ok, so you proved that the usage wasn't ideal because you didn't understand what the speaker intended... which is the real test...

I did understand it to be a "he or she" situation.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

Ok, so you proved that the usage wasn't ideal because you didn't understand what the speaker intended... which is the real test...

I did understand it to be a "he or she" situation.

I think it was obvious to anyone that bothered to read my post.

This was just a perfect storm of arrogance and incompetence which results in...

http://www.upload.ee/image/308657/epic_failure.jpg

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Arjuna wrote:

]Ok, so you proved that the usage wasn't ideal because you didn't understand what the speaker intended... which is the real test...

Or it could just be sloppy reading on my part. To be honest, I'm too lazy to re-read it having spent my store of pedantry and not unwilling enough to concede error, so if he it was just doing the he/she they pronoun then I was wrong and the "living languages" argument is perfectly relevant.

And to Night Ripper, no, I'm not smarting over any previous exchange you reference. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and have no problem admitting to it. Looks to be this way now and that just isn't a big deal to me, I've been wrong once before (I'd thought I was wrong but wasn't) and may once be wrong again.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

As I read this thing, strongly reminded me of Nietzsche and his idea that telling the strong to be meek is as useless as telling the meek to be strong. Dunno, just saying.

Yea, how about people swim for a while, then rest on the plank when it's their turn?

Nietzche... (sound of somebody inhaling water). Did you see that movie Pandorum? Loved it.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

I dislike side-stepping theoretical situations. His idea is making a colorful way of saying, "A man has something you need and he needs in order to live, do you take it?" Adding the color humanizes it, making it easier to asses.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Arjuna wrote:
]Ok, so you proved that the usage wasn't ideal because you didn't understand what the speaker intended... which is the real test...

Or it could just be sloppy reading on my part. To be honest, I'm too lazy to re-read it having spent my store of pedantry and not unwilling enough to concede error, so if he it was just doing the he/she they pronoun then I was wrong and the "living languages" argument is perfectly relevant.

And to Night Ripper, no, I'm not smarting over any previous exchange you reference. If I'm wrong I'm wrong and have no problem admitting to it. Looks to be this way now and that just isn't a big deal to me, I've been wrong once before (I'd thought I was wrong but wasn't) and may once be wrong again.

You're just trying to be magnanimous but the fact that you did all that typing in an attempt to attack me without doing your homework just makes you look that much more ridiculous. Your halfhearted attempts to downplay your failure won't work on me. I know your ego is bruised and it makes me smile.

Have a nice day.

1 Reply

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

I dislike side-stepping theoretical situations. His idea is making a colorful way of saying, "A man has something you need and he needs in order to live, do you take it?" Adding the color humanizes it, making it easier to asses.

The OP asked for a moral judgement. That's like the ethics of war. In my view there ain't none.

And for anybody who didn't understand the above message, please translate it into Spanish and try it again.

2 Replies

@Arjuna,

I was attacking your attempt to break down the situation by suggesting they both take turns on the plank.

In my opinion, if it is inevitable that there will be loss, the moral judgment is to minimize the loss. -1 is greater than -2, just as much as 1 is greater than 0 or -1.

1 Reply

@Night Ripper,

Night Ripper wrote:

You're just trying to be magnanimous but the fact that you did all that typing in an attempt to attack me without doing your homework just makes you look that much more ridiculous.

I wasn't trying to "attack" you, I was just being inordinately pedantic. I will likely do it again to you, given the opportunities you provide, and it won't be an "attack" then unless you want to infuse it with emotional value. Not all disagreement has to be personal to everyone.

And as for being ridiculous I've been known to look plenty ridiculous on occasion, in nearly ten years here I think you could make a very good collection me being as ridiculous as they come. I just don't think it matters to me as much as you think it does or should. I'd feel more ridiculous trying to not ever look ridiculous no matter how long the stretch than just owning up to my brainfarts.

Quote:

Your halfhearted attempts to downplay your failure won't work on me. I know your ego is bruised and it makes me smile.

If you count momentary embarrassment at being wrong with a lot of strength of conviction you could say my ego was "bruised" for a couple seconds and if it means that much to you to think my ego is deeply wounded I can learn to live with that. It's not going to change my life much and it sounds like you have your heart set on that narrative.

But I think what you mean by "downplaying" (what would the opposite be?) here is basically not having a cow if you find out you are wrong like you think I should. Instead of obdurately turning up the strength of conviction to 11 I think it's a lot easier to just admit to being wrong. It's much less effort than infallible posturing and has the additional benefit of intellectual honesty. I'm fine with a fallible self-image. If less flattering it's at least less discordant with reality as well.

Quote:

Have a nice day.

Et tu? I need a better word for this kind of smugly duplicitous salutation, but for now I'm calling it the Mark Noble.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I wasn't trying to "attack" you, I was just being inordinately pedantic.

If you were just being pedantic then you would have merely point out my alleged mistake without the spiel about how I'm just trying to save face and blah, blah, blah. You made it personal, an attack on my character, instead of just correcting me.

Robert Gentel wrote:

I will likely do it again to you, given the opportunities you provide, and it won't be an "attack" then unless you want to infuse it with emotional value.

What opportunities? You're the one that made a mistake, not me. I think maybe that hasn't quite sunk in far enough.

Robert Gentel wrote:

Et tu? I need a better word for this kind of smugly duplicitous salutation, but for now I'm calling it the Mark Noble.

You're at least right about me being smug but rightfully so. It's rare that someone gets what they deserve. The world is grossly unfair. I like to savor these little moments when they present themselves.

0 Replies

@Sentience,

Sentience wrote:

I was attacking your attempt to break down the situation by suggesting they both take turns on the plank.

In my opinion, if it is inevitable that there will be loss, the moral judgment is to minimize the loss. -1 is greater than -2, just as much as 1 is greater than 0 or -1.

Right, but the scenario assures you that you end up with -1, you just have to pick which -1.

I hold this truth to be self-evident: all people are created equal. If I have to die, let it be trying to save everybody.

That's in my nature... which is my moral compass.

0 Replies

@Arjuna,

Quote:

And for anybody who didn't understand the above message, please translate it into Spanish and try it again.

1. Why Spanish?

2. How could someone who doesn't understand a message possibly translate into another language?

1 Reply

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

drown

What he said.

But in practical terms (which I understand the parameters of the question exclude) the best idea is clearly to share the plank, with both holding it while floating.

0 Replies

@ebrown p,

ebrown p wrote:

Quote:

And for anybody who didn't understand the above message, please translate it into Spanish and try it again.

1. Why Spanish?

2. How could someone who doesn't understand a message possibly translate into another language?

Umm.. stupid jokes that make no sense is my forte.

I appreciate your posts, by the way. Adios!

0 Replies

Ai caramba !
What is this all about ??? Schizophrenic behaviour festival ?
Anger flows around with stupidity...
I´m going for a book with orange juice, Adeus ! (Adios) Cool

0 Replies

@Sentience,

I do not see any great ethics question here concerning is it right to take by force from another the means needed for life in order to save your own life.

The answer is as clear as a bell NO and it does not matter if you have a low opinion of the person with the plank or not.

2 Replies

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

I do not see any great ethics question here concerning is it right to take by force from another the means needed for life in order to save your own life.

The answer is as clear as a bell NO and it does not matter if you have a low opinion of the person with the plank or not.

Yea, I agree. This is the problem: see yourself as the weaker person on the plank. You get to live the rest of your life remembering that an innocent person died because you exist.

"Why didn't I give him the plank?" You ask.

To see either death as justified, you have to simultaneously hold directly opposing ethical positions. One for yourself, and one for the other... which ever one you are. That is baloney.

1 Reply

@Arjuna,

You are talking abut surviver guilt and that is not an Ethics question either.

One man got to the plank ahead of another and that is just a matter of fate as in war one man die right next to another man for no reason other then random chance.

I do not know you, however for myself the numbers of other humans that I would give my life up for to save their is not all that great. I would however not kill/murder another person to save my life.

To sum up I would not give up to a random stranger the plank to save his life at the cost of mine , just as I would not take the plank away from another to save my life.

1 Reply

@BillRM,

BillRM wrote:

You are talking abut surviver guilt and that is not an Ethics question either.

One man got to the plank ahead of another and that is just a matter of fate as in war one man die right next to another man for no reason other then random chance.

To sum up I would not give up to a random stranger the plank to save his life at the cost of mine , just as I would not take the plank away from another to save my life.

You're right. But I think we're in agreement. To leave the choice to fate is amoral. There are no choices in fate, and therefore no morality.

There's nothing righteous about dying for someone else unless death is what you wanted. There is no right answer to the question.

2 Replies

Ethics of Emergencies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know