|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 23:25:26 GMT -6
Please explain the difference between giving credence to future dangerousness, and looking into the future, I'm confused, to me they appear to be one in the same. Consider the Scott Peterson case. Personally, I don't see him as a person who is likely to kill again yet does that mean the deaths of his wife and unborn son should go unpunished? So you don't believe, in the Peterson case, that death was an appropriate punishment? You are still looking to the future, are you not, by saying you don't think he's likely to re-offend, hence consideration of future dangerousness? Something which you previously stated was not a consideration.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 22, 2009 23:27:34 GMT -6
So, returning the favour: would you in either scenario take the life of the individual over the five, if the individual concerned was a convicted murderer, and the five were innocents? What if the individual was a convicted murderer but in the group of 5 there was a person who was going to commit murder that day What is the single person was a wealthy, contributiung member of society but the other 5 were a drain on the system(bludgers). The point is, you don't know, you never will. And should it matter? Choosing who deserves to live more than another person is a very dangerous, slippery slope.. Good post Kita
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2009 3:29:30 GMT -6
One question: Are those 6 people retarded? Who stands in the middle of a railroad track? Honestly. It's like playing in traffic. Probably not retarded, stupid, which is worse...At the risk of sounding like Joe; The term natural selection comes into my mind . Jane is not god, nor is she an engineer, she has no way of knowing what switching the track can cause, she should mind her own business and either warn them or call emergency. and get out of the way of the train. Oh, for a minute there I thought your fear of sounding like Joe was connected to the terms you use at the start of the post like retarded and stupid! ;D
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2009 4:50:15 GMT -6
Pick the group that has no liberals. LMAO!
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 23, 2009 6:26:42 GMT -6
Moral dilemma. Why, they shouldnt be on the tracks in the first place, secondly they are placing themselves at risk, thirdly if they do get killed the poor emnergency services will have to clean up the mess. Moral dilemma, i call it bloody stupid and irresponsible. Sod it, yell, if they dont hear you, they die? thats life. , that will teach them for playing on the tracks, their adults for gods sake.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 6:39:11 GMT -6
What if the individual was a convicted murderer but in the group of 5 there was a person who was going to commit murder that day What is the single person was a wealthy, contributiung member of society but the other 5 were a drain on the system(bludgers). The point is, you don't know, you never will. And should it matter? Choosing who deserves to live more than another person is a very dangerous, slippery slope.. However, you have just described yourself as belonging to that small (very small) group that believes all killing is wrong? Really? Always? Could you expound of your thoughts here G Are you saying that those who choose not to act, although certainly, we're still deciding, even by not acting, who will live and who will die, are pacifists? I have leanings in that direction, but others who have replied in the same fashion, most definitely do not.
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 23, 2009 7:03:34 GMT -6
You can only do so much for people, if they choose a path which is dangerous and self destructive so be it. Choosing who lives and who dies is a slippery slope but then we do that with abortion, with certain illnesses regarding expensive medications and other such moral dilemmas in Armed conflict, collateral damage?, so whats the difference if some do because of their position in life and circumstances become god? Its here already, I cant see the argument , or the moral dilemma.
|
|
|
Post by SubSurfCPO(ret) on Feb 23, 2009 7:38:52 GMT -6
Hence the Schrödinger's cat reference, a cat is placed in a box with poison. It is an experiment in quantum physics and I won't bore you with the details; but, the first step is to place the cat in the box with the poison.
People must take responsibility for their actions and are therefore responsible for being on the train tracks (or at the crime scene) in the first place.
Jane does not have an input into this equation; too many variables.
Second, there is my personal theory...
The stupid shall be punished.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 8:01:01 GMT -6
Could you expound of your thoughts here G Are you saying that those who choose not to act, although certainly, we're still deciding, even by not acting, who will live and who will die, are pacifists? I have leanings in that direction, but others who have replied in the same fashion, most definitely do not. Ok, but it's after midnight ... Not sure I quite understand your sentence here, if not, let me know. I think it's complicated. Inaction always leads to 'something' and a 'something' is a result. And, if a result occurs we have action; ie. cause and effect happens even if we chose not to act. Think of an extreme example, something like 'Sophie's Choice'. You are offered the choice of saving one of your children, fail to choose and both die. Yet 'not chosing' is actually a choice. So, there are not two choices but three here; save either child, or lose both. An extreme yes, but one with some obvious parallels. The question is whether we feel it is more appropriate to not act than to act. If you believe that all life is sacred, that there is never any circumstance that you would take a life, then you are actually taking an active position that will effect others. For example, chose to not fight in a war and you are effecting the outcome by your absence - it may even mean that someone else will have to take your place in the firing line. Does this mean you are morally responsible for all this? Perhaps. What is certain is that choosing not to act is nothing of the sort - you are still 'acting'. What you as a believer in the above must deal with is whether the price for holding such a belief is worth the cost. Strong moral support (usually religious in nature) is usually needed for this; most people will always find some reason to violate true pacifism. See above for those examples, some you have noted already. So, short answer, no. Inaction does not automatically make you a pacifist - indeed not acting can be the most affirmative, even aggressive, form of action there is. But every action (inaction) has a cost, we have to figure out whether that price is one we are willing to pay. All my opinion, of course.
|
|
|
Post by gman on Feb 23, 2009 8:07:38 GMT -6
Moral dilemma. Why, they shouldnt be on the tracks in the first place, secondly they are placing themselves at risk, thirdly if they do get killed the poor emnergency services will have to clean up the mess. Moral dilemma, i call it bloody stupid and irresponsible. Lawrence, you have just argued quite well that some victims deserve their fate. 'She shouldn't have been walking there', 'he should have realised working late was a risk' etc. No? Yes? It's a metaphor designed to make you think, not a literal example.
|
|
|
Post by Felix2 on Feb 23, 2009 8:12:09 GMT -6
Moral dilemma. Why, they shouldnt be on the tracks in the first place, secondly they are placing themselves at risk, thirdly if they do get killed the poor emnergency services will have to clean up the mess. Moral dilemma, i call it bloody stupid and irresponsible. Lawrence, you have just argued quite well that some victims deserve their fate. 'She shouldn't have been walking there', 'he should have realised working late was a risk' etc. No? Yes? It's a metaphor designed to make you think, not a literal example. I think you should allow Lawrence some latitude at presetn G-man, England is about to get creamed in the Six nations so he probably has other pre occupations on his mind right now!
|
|
|
Post by lawrence on Feb 23, 2009 9:33:48 GMT -6
Gigman, i am not totally dim, i realised it was a metaphor so i gave my own. , hence the pisstake. However it was a dilemma. Who to choose. i choose the warning and sod them. And the metaphore is , "dont stand on railway tracks" It stupid. As for the rugby Felix, let me qupte shakespear of i may. King Henry 5th Whats he that sishes so? My cousin Westmoreland? No, my fair cousin If we are mark'd to die, we are enow to do our country loss: and if to live, The fewer men, the greater share of honour. Gods will! I pay thee, wish not one man more. By Jove, i am not covetous for gold, Nor care i who doth feed upon my cost: It yearns me not if men my garments wear: Such outward things dwell not in my desires: But if it be a sin to covert Honour. I am the most offending sould alive. No, Faith, my coz, wish not a man from England; Gods peace!, i would not lose so great an honour As one man more, methinks, would share from me For the best hope i have . O, do not wish one more! rather proclaim it, Westmoreland, through my host, That he which hath no stomach to this fight, Let him depart, his passport shall be made And crowns for convoy put into his purse; We would not die in that mans company That fears his fellowship to die with us. This day is called the feast of crispian: He that outlives this day, and comes safe home, Will stand tip-toe when the day is named, And rouse him at that name Crispian. He that shall live this day, and see old age. will yearly on the vigil feast his neighbours, And say tomorrow is Saint Crispian, ! The he will strip his sleeves and show his scars. And say ;These wounds i had on Crispian day. Old men forget; yet all shall be forgot But he'll remember with advantages What feats he did that day' then shall our names. Familiar in his mouth as household words Harry the king, Bedford and Exeter, Warwick and Talbot, Salisbury and Gloucester, be in their flowing cups freshly remembered. This story shall the good men teach his son; And Crispian Crispian shall ne'er go by. from this day until the ending of the world, But we in it shall be remembered; We few, we happy few, we band of brothers; for he to-day that sheds his blood with me shall be my brother, be he ne'er so vile, This day shall gentle his condition; And gentlemen in England now a bed, shall think themsleves accursed they were not here, And hold their manhoods cheap while any speaks that fought with us on Saint Crispian Day.COME ON ENGLAND
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 10:06:31 GMT -6
Consider the Scott Peterson case. Personally, I don't see him as a person who is likely to kill again yet does that mean the deaths of his wife and unborn son should go unpunished? So you don't believe, in the Peterson case, that death was an appropriate punishment? You are still looking to the future, are you not, by saying you don't think he's likely to re-offend, hence consideration of future dangerousness? Something which you previously stated was not a consideration. No, not at all...I am giving you an example of a person who is not likely to kill again and yet deserves the maximum punishment (had he had a fair trial and the jury came to the same conclusion).
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 10:10:21 GMT -6
In the accident scenario, you are placing yourself in the position of choosing who will live and who will die. In the murderer scenario, it is the murderer who made the willful choice of taking a life. I think it is comparing apples to oranges Not really, the difference is the latter has more moral weight behind it: innocent life is worth more than non-innocent. These types of dilemmas are designed with one question in mind: 'When is it right to kill'? Most people say 'sometimes', few ever say 'never'. For those of us in the big 'sometimes' camp we should be able to provide some sort of justification. If we can't, then maybe we should think about just why that is. Okay, then I just didn't see it as that. I must be in the 'never' camp but I must add I don't feel the DP should be considered 'killing' a person although the end result is the same as being killed. I see the DP as the application of justice
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 10:22:55 GMT -6
Not really, the difference is the latter has more moral weight behind it: innocent life is worth more than non-innocent. These types of dilemmas are designed with one question in mind: 'When is it right to kill'? Most people say 'sometimes', few ever say 'never'. For those of us in the big 'sometimes' camp we should be able to provide some sort of justification. If we can't, then maybe we should think about just why that is. Okay, then I just didn't see it as that. I must be in the 'never' camp but I must add I don't feel the DP should be considered 'killing' a person although the end result is the same as being killed. I see the DP as the application of justice It's not possible to be in the pro camp and answer never, sorry. If you don't want to get your pretty little hands dirty by killing, then you need to jump the fence.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 10:24:15 GMT -6
Could you expound of your thoughts here G Are you saying that those who choose not to act, although certainly, we're still deciding, even by not acting, who will live and who will die, are pacifists? I have leanings in that direction, but others who have replied in the same fashion, most definitely do not. Ok, but it's after midnight ... Not sure I quite understand your sentence here, if not, let me know. I think it's complicated. Inaction always leads to 'something' and a 'something' is a result. And, if a result occurs we have action; ie. cause and effect happens even if we chose not to act. Think of an extreme example, something like 'Sophie's Choice'. You are offered the choice of saving one of your children, fail to choose and both die. Yet 'not chosing' is actually a choice. So, there are not two choices but three here; save either child, or lose both. An extreme yes, but one with some obvious parallels. The question is whether we feel it is more appropriate to not act than to act. If you believe that all life is sacred, that there is never any circumstance that you would take a life, then you are actually taking an active position that will effect others. For example, chose to not fight in a war and you are effecting the outcome by your absence - it may even mean that someone else will have to take your place in the firing line. Does this mean you are morally responsible for all this? Perhaps. What is certain is that choosing not to act is nothing of the sort - you are still 'acting'. What you as a believer in the above must deal with is whether the price for holding such a belief is worth the cost. Strong moral support (usually religious in nature) is usually needed for this; most people will always find some reason to violate true pacifism. See above for those examples, some you have noted already. So, short answer, no. Inaction does not automatically make you a pacifist - indeed not acting can be the most affirmative, even aggressive, form of action there is. But every action (inaction) has a cost, we have to figure out whether that price is one we are willing to pay. All my opinion, of course. Thank you G And yes, even though it was after midnight, your post made sense
|
|
|
Post by yasgursfarm on Feb 23, 2009 10:35:14 GMT -6
Not a real question, so no answer. If I had to make the decision then I would be there in the moment and would make a decision at that time. If she had time to switch the tracks why did she not have time to yell or in some way gain attention of one of the two groups. Changing the paradigm is illegal. Except for Captain James T. Kirk at the academy.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 10:46:07 GMT -6
Okay, then I just didn't see it as that. I must be in the 'never' camp but I must add I don't feel the DP should be considered 'killing' a person although the end result is the same as being killed. I see the DP as the application of justice It's not possible to be in the pro camp and answer never, sorry. If you don't want to get your pretty little hands dirty by killing, then you need to jump the fence. Why not? It is possible if you do not consider the DP as killing. There is a moral difference between killing and the application of the death penalty. I confirm my position
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 23, 2009 11:23:38 GMT -6
So you don't believe, in the Peterson case, that death was an appropriate punishment? You are still looking to the future, are you not, by saying you don't think he's likely to re-offend, hence consideration of future dangerousness? Something which you previously stated was not a consideration. No, not at all...I am giving you an example of a person who is not likely to kill again and yet deserves the maximum punishment (had he had a fair trial and the jury came to the same conclusion). I don't see Scott Peterson as someone unlikely to be a future danger. He is obviously a sociopath, having no empathy for others and acting only to acheive his own selfish goals. He killed a woman he supposedly was recently in love with, he killed his own soon-to-be-born offspring, and he did it with forethought and some skill, coming under suspicion as the husband but not leaving much evidence behind of his crime. I am not sure that it was only this one particular set of circumstances that would make him dangerous to society. He seems to me to be someone who might harm anyone who significantly got in his way. Poor Lacy and Connor just happened ot be the first ones. That we know of.
|
|
|
Post by ltdc on Feb 23, 2009 11:25:57 GMT -6
Hi all here is a moral dilemma of some proportion. Please comment. - 1) Jane is standing at a railway switch as an oncoming train rapidly approaches from the left. Just beyond her is a fork in the track. Five innocent people, unaware of the train, are standing on the left fork. One innocent man is standing on the right. If Jane does nothing, the train will veer to the left and kill the five people. If she throws the switch, the train will veer to the right and kill the man. Should she do it?
- 2) Now Jane is standing on an open footbridge that crosses a track. A large man is beside her. A runaway train is approaching at high speed. Just beyond the bridge, behind her, five people are standing on the track. The only way to save them is to push the large man immediately off the bridge into the train's path. Should she do it?
best wishes from Sweden nils why is this a moral dilemma of any proportion? so Nils, can I get an answer or not? why is this a dilemma?
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 11:30:01 GMT -6
No, not at all...I am giving you an example of a person who is not likely to kill again and yet deserves the maximum punishment (had he had a fair trial and the jury came to the same conclusion). I don't see Scott Peterson as someone unlikely to be a future danger. He is obviously a sociopath, having no empathy for others and acting only to acheive his own selfish goals. He killed a woman he supposedly was recently in love with, he killed his own soon-to-be-born offspring, and he did it with forethought and some skill, coming under suspicion as the husband but not leaving much evidence behind of his crime. I am not sure that it was only this one particular set of circumstances that would make him dangerous to society. He seems to me to be someone who might harm anyone who significantly got in his way. Poor Lacy and Connor just happened ot be the first ones. That we know of. All that is true but he is no dummy either. I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Of course, I don't know him so it is only my opinion.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 11:45:34 GMT -6
It's not possible to be in the pro camp and answer never, sorry. If you don't want to get your pretty little hands dirty by killing, then you need to jump the fence. Why not? It is possible if you do not consider the DP as killing. There is a moral difference between killing and the application of the death penalty. I confirm my position Even as an anti, I do not see the death penalty as murder, and that is the moral line to which you referred. However, the application of capital punishment results in a dead murderer, correct, and is therefore, "killing". If you opt out, as you claimed in an earlier post, you cannot legitimately support the death penalty.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 11:53:29 GMT -6
So then we are not too far apart in our beliefs. The only difference is that I will support the DP when I feel is is justified and you never will, regardless of the heinous nature of the crime
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 11:59:55 GMT -6
However, the application of capital punishment results in a dead murderer, correct, and is therefore, "killing". If you opt out, as you claimed in an earlier post, you cannot legitimately support the death penalty. Yes, the end result is the same but the means to the end are at opposite ends of the spectrum. One is legal and one is unlawful One ends the life of murderers and one ends the life of innocent people
|
|
|
Post by nils on Feb 23, 2009 12:00:50 GMT -6
why is this a moral dilemma of any proportion? so Nils, can I get an answer or not? why is this a dilemma? Hi. again; Most of us, when confronted question A) will say YES, kill the one and save the five. But most of us will say no to question B). Most of us will not the guy by pushing him, thereby saving the five. you can listen to this interesting recording on this problem, you just need to listen from minute 1.00 and a few minutes on... blogs.wnyc.org/radiolab/2009/02/09/morality-rebroadcast/ best wishes from Copenhagen :-) nils
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 23, 2009 12:03:57 GMT -6
I don't see Scott Peterson as someone unlikely to be a future danger. He is obviously a sociopath, having no empathy for others and acting only to acheive his own selfish goals. He killed a woman he supposedly was recently in love with, he killed his own soon-to-be-born offspring, and he did it with forethought and some skill, coming under suspicion as the husband but not leaving much evidence behind of his crime. I am not sure that it was only this one particular set of circumstances that would make him dangerous to society. He seems to me to be someone who might harm anyone who significantly got in his way. Poor Lacy and Connor just happened ot be the first ones. That we know of. All that is true but he is no dummy either. I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Of course, I don't know him so it is only my opinion. Why on earth would you think he "learned from this" then? You are projecting a "lesson learned" Sunday school teacher outlook onto a cold-blooded killer. Sociopaths don't learn moral lessons. They just get better at looking out for their own interests.
|
|
|
Post by Kay on Feb 23, 2009 12:07:38 GMT -6
All that is true but he is no dummy either. I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Of course, I don't know him so it is only my opinion. Why on earth would you think he "learned from this" then? You are projecting a "lesson learned" Sunday school teacher outlook onto a cold-blooded killer. Sociopaths don't learn moral lessons. They just get better at looking out for their own interests. I would agree, in fact the "normalcy" of his circumstances and situation before he murdered, would make him even more dangerous, IMO.
|
|
|
Post by missy on Feb 23, 2009 12:11:50 GMT -6
All that is true but he is no dummy either. I believe he learned from this and would not do this again In no way do I see him as high on the list of potential repeat killers. Of course, I don't know him so it is only my opinion. Why on earth would you think he "learned from this" then? You are projecting a "lesson learned" Sunday school teacher outlook onto a cold-blooded killer. Sociopaths don't learn moral lessons. They just get better at looking out for their own interests. Because he is of a different genre than any murderer I have ever seen. IMO, and I certainly could be wrong, but I think this was a time of his life that he would never repeat if given the chance. I must emphasis I do not want him to be given the chance..but that is how I see him and his case. Also, I feel his trial was so wrought with issues, for the integrity of the CJS, he must be retried.
|
|
|
Post by Charlene on Feb 23, 2009 12:32:38 GMT -6
Why on earth would you think he "learned from this" then? You are projecting a "lesson learned" Sunday school teacher outlook onto a cold-blooded killer. Sociopaths don't learn moral lessons. They just get better at looking out for their own interests. Because he is of a different genre than any murderer I have ever seen. IMO, and I certainly could be wrong, but I think this was a time of his life that he would never repeat if given the chance. I must emphasis I do not want him to be given the chance..but that is how I see him and his case. Also, I feel his trial was so wrought with issues, for the integrity of the CJS, he must be retried. Pure projection and imagination. This statement reminds me of the woman whose chimp ripped off her best friend's face.
|
|
|
Post by josephdphillips on Feb 23, 2009 12:54:09 GMT -6
Why on earth would you think he "learned from this" then? You are projecting a "lesson learned" Sunday school teacher outlook onto a cold-blooded killer. Sociopaths don't learn moral lessons. They just get better at looking out for their own interests. Could not have stated it better myself, Charlene. Kudos. America's schizophrenia about murder is ridiculous. By definition, anyone who commits murder, no matter what the circumstances, knows that doing it is wrong and does it anyway. Punishment should be based on what the murderer did, and not on what he might do again. It's easy enough to cross the line and kill someone the first time. We must assume that it's just as easy the second or third time, too.
|
|