Morality- which is the better choice?

aidan wrote:

I also see, in those I've known as friends, a common tendency among them to be risk-takers and into adrenalin rushes, so it may not all be down to altruism.

Good point! There is no inherent implication of altruism in auto-racing or skydiving either.

No living creatures known to the writer so closely resemble man in the tendency to wage pitched battles as do ants. Vast numbers of separate species, or of hostile factions of the same species, may he seen massed in combat, which is continued for hours, days, or, in at least one case noted, for over a week. Some of the most extensive battles observed have been fought between neighboring communes of Tetramorium coespitum, a small dark-brown species common to America and Europe. It abounds in and around Philadelphia, where it is popularly known as the "pavement ant," on account of its habit of making its nest under the bricks and flags of sidewalks.

There may be genetic predispositions in humans that suggest parallels to the differentiation in ant colonies. How ants carry on war

Quote:

No living creatures known to the writer so closely resemble man in the tendency to wage pitched battles as do ants. Vast numbers of separate species, or of hostile factions of the same species, may he seen massed in combat, which is continued for hours, days, or, in at least one case noted, for over a week. Some of the most extensive battles observed have been fought between neighboring communes of Tetramorium coespitum, a small dark-brown species common to America and Europe. It abounds in and around Philadelphia, where it is popularly known as the "pavement ant," on account of its habit of making its nest under the bricks and flags of sidewalks.

I would never sacrifice myself for people whom I did not know. The scenario might be different if some of the people were those that I loved.

As for an answer to the original situation, I have none. I don't know what I would do until I was there.

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I would never sacrifice myself for people whom I did not know. The scenario might be different if some of the people were those that I loved.

Thank goodness that you haven't been to war. In Vietnam it was common for men to fall on a grenade to save thier unit.

What you would do in that situation may be an interesting question, but it isn't an ethical question. What you should do in that situation is an ethical question, and it has the advantage of being answerable right now, without having to wait until you are in a position to save fifty people.

Unfortunately for those fifty people, I don't see morality as simply as (some) others do. Placing fifty random people in harm's way means that some of them might go on to do some act of evil in the future. How much are their lives worth if some of them would become murderers after this event? If, say, one third of them would become criminals if they lived, would it be okay to kill all of them to prevent both myself from dying and the 16 killers from living? Suppose that if I let these people die I may go on to save a hundred another day- then is it just to kill these 50?

Hypothetical situations usually cause more questions, not answers. Again, I truly don't know what I should do.

snookered wrote:

Phoenix32890 wrote:

I would never sacrifice myself for people whom I did not know. The scenario might be different if some of the people were those that I loved.

Thank goodness that you haven't been to war. In Vietnam it was common for men to fall on a grenade to save their unit.

One wonders if you have been to war. The members of a small unit, with the exception of someone who has just arrived as a replacement, get to know one another very well in a matters of days. A few weeks together can make men very close friends who care very deeply about one another.

Phoenix stipulated those who she did not know. Your objection does not address that at all.

In wartime, there have been many noted acts of sacrifice, heroism and respect among soldiers and/or civilians of opposite sides whom did not know each other personally.

On the contrary, hypothetical situations are excellent devices for getting answers. Your failure to give an answer in this situation isn't the fault of the hypothetical, it's the fault of your poorly reasoned moral stance.

Unless your hypothetical situation is totally specific (which this one is not), then you must consider every variable as an entirely new hypothetical question...

Why?

If this is true, then it must be equally true in a real situation where you just don't know all the variables.

Personally I think it's just a way to dodge the question. But I understand that many people think in this way, which might help me understand why so many of us are incapacitated by their own perception of morals.

I think the right thing would be to let myself die. Do I think I would do that? I don't know.

I'm confident that you're quite wrong. Unless your hypothetical situation is totally specific (which this one is not), then you must consider every variable as an entirely new hypothetical question- or at least for someone who cares about the ends that come about from a 'moral' decision.

My poorly reasoned moral stance? I haven't even given a stance yet.

All I've said is that I can't make a decision without understanding the consequences of what I'm doing, and that if I was forced to it would be a complete toss up. That makes far more sense than saying "I absolutely must save them" or "I absolutely must not".

I submit that I am uneasy about answering the question. If I cannot possibly know any of the variables, I think the right thing would be to let myself die.

Cyracuz-When I was considering my answer, I kind of glossed over the fact that helping meant sure death, because that is the one factor of the question that would lead to a pretty dead-end response ( in my book at least) and that would be, "I don't know what I would do"