Fun with Morality Questions

[Quath]

That was pretty interesting, Lovely. Thanks for the response.

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

He was trying to show that this seems to be a common set of ethics that is common across culture and religious belief. Or in other words, he was trying to show that we do not get our morality from religion.

I still don't understand how this points to a 'morality'. Is he saying that a large majority of people, whether religious or not, in this hypothetical situation would choose to murder 1 to save 5 simply because it is better that 1 die instead of 5? My point is that there is no right answer to this question, because this situation does not exist in reality. If it did, there would be other options to try and save all. Or, if the 5 were stuck by some sort of accident, it would be an unfortunate tragdey that they were hit by a train, just as the bus that plunged off the bridge last week was an unfortunate accident. Or, if somebody stuck them there on purpose, he would be responsible for thier deaths. I DON'T think it is okay to murder 1 to save 5. AND, I DON'T think its okay to sit back and watch the 5 die without trying to do something. So the hypothetical question is unanswerable because, as I've said before, it has no bearing on reality.

Say I gave you the hypothetical question: Would you rather kill one puppy or three kittens? The answer, I hope, would be neither. If I force you to choose one option, I would be the one to blame for the death of either one puppy or three kittens, wouldn't I?

I'm shocked at people like peace4all, who actually make the decision that its okay for 5 95 year olds to die by train collision simply because their 95 year olds who have less time to live than the one on the other track. This is not morality. This is judgement, which belongs only to God. Morality is the idea that life is precious and that we should strive to protect life. What if the 5 had 6 months to live? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Is peace4all qualified to make the judgement of when it would be okay to kill them?

 

[Quath]

I still don't understand how this points to a 'morality'. Is he saying that a large majority of people, whether religious or not, in this hypothetical situation would choose to murder 1 to save 5 simply because it is better that 1 die instead of 5?

No. His point was more in the consistency of the answers rather than the "rightness" or "wrongness" of them.

My point is that there is no right answer to this question, because this situation does not exist in reality. If it did, there would be other options to try and save all.

In a probability sense, you are right. However, I think that is too easy to just say "Oh, that will never happen so I should never contemplate it." We do make such decisions in reality but under different situations.

A very common one is distribution of medicine and resources to save people. For example, say you can decide where a rescue helicoptor goes. You may have to decide who gets saved and who doesn't. Or if a woman uses fertility drugs, she may have to decide to abort some of the eggs to help some of the eggs live. Or a leader of a country may have to decide to sacrifice troops to meet an objective. If we can not be clear about our own choices of whom we think should live or die, how can we judge others that are put into such a situation.

Or, if the 5 were stuck by some sort of accident, it would be an unfortunate tragdey that they were hit by a train, just as the bus that plunged off the bridge last week was an unfortunate accident.

But if it turned out you were at the controls and you could have done something, people would question your choice.

Or, if somebody stuck them there on purpose, he would be responsible for thier deaths. I DON'T think it is okay to murder 1 to save 5. AND, I DON'T think its okay to sit back and watch the 5 die without trying to do something. So the hypothetical question is unanswerable because, as I've said before, it has no bearing on reality.

This question does not just look at blame but looks at what we think is important. If a terrorist says he will kill someone, you can blame the bad situation on the terrorist, but if you have some control, then morality will help you make decisions.

I'm shocked at people like peace4all, who actually make the decision that its okay for 5 95 year olds to die by train collision simply because their 95 year olds who have less time to live than the one on the other track. This is not morality. This is judgement, which belongs only to God. Morality is the idea that life is precious and that we should strive to protect life. What if the 5 had 6 months to live? 1 year? 2 years? 5 years? Is peace4all qualified to make the judgement of when it would be okay to kill them?

We have to make such decisions as part of society. With limited resources, this decisions is made every day. Do we spend more money to take care of the elderly or more money for care of the young? This is an equivalent question.

One of the issues presented in the movie, "I, Robot" is that it is hard to program robots with our morality. They give an example where a car wreck has two people pushed into the lake - an adult and a child. The robot's morality was determined by odds of survival and it rescues the adult. The main character says that a human would have picked the child with a lower odds of survival.

 

[peace4all]

wildatheart..

I did not actually say what I would do, But I did say that their are other factors that would probably come into effect, if you look at it.

You can say that No Christian should make the decision, but it happens every day.


Donate a dollar to feed american poor children, or donate a dollar to feed iraqi poor children. You only have one dollar, which one are you donating too?

Kill 5 old people, kill 5 children?

kill thousands of iraqi's, or open the possibility to thousands of americans maybe killed...

 

[WiLdAtHeArT]

One major difference is that one doesn't 'kill' some by helping others.
The bigger question is this: spend $500 on a new computer? Or spend $500 on feeding starving children in Africa? Does one 'kill' those starving children by opting not to help? Taken to the extreme, ANY purchase on life's comfort's (including heat, clothing, shelter, food, etc.) for ourselves might be seen as a choice not to help somebody else.

Are we supposed to take a vow of poverty like Mother Teresa? Is anything short of killing myself not enough to help those who are dying every day?

How hard it is for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven...
hmmm...

 

[Quath]

One major difference is that one doesn't 'kill' some by helping others.

I think the overall point is that you do make life or death decisions all the time. Some decisions are harder than others. For example, do you buy the best security system to protect your family? Most don't. If a burgler breaks into the house, they are not to blame for the crime, but are they to blame for not taking precautions?

If we spend the nation's health care money on the elderly, is there enough to immunize the children? At what point do we just tell the elderly that they can not get a surgery since we can't afford to give everyone 100% medical coverage?

 

[lawhammer]

He is an activist, not a deity to be worshiped.

About Dawkins.....self-worship. Only one god to an ego that large.

That is just one type of relativism. Other types are saying that slavery is bad today but not in the past. Or saying that resting on Saturday in the past is good but it is not so important today. Or killing homosexuals in the past is good but killing them today is bad. All of that and more is the moral relativism that most Christians have.

Those are more of shifts in social attitudes.

Moral relativism is more that's there no absolutes of right and wrong, that's everything's "relative". It's a dangerous attiude.

He was trying to show that this seems to be a common set of ethics that is common across culture and religious belief. Or in other words, he was trying to show that we do not get our morality from religion.

If that's what he was trying to do, he's wrong, most people (not him) do get their morality from religion, and that seems to be Dawkin's problem. Well, one of them.

Well, he is making the point that if a person talks to an imaginary being, he is mentally ill. However, when many people do it, it is called religion. So ignoring Christianity, we could look at worshipers of Zeus in that manner. We know they are talking to an imaginary being and making up stuff he does. If it was just one person, we ould try to get them medical help. When there are many, we treat them as if everything were normal.

Right there - "an imaginary being", you just made a moral judgement, an absolute one at that.

The belief in God, or gods is universal, whether Dawkins likes it or not.

lawhammer. I am not speaking of US soldiers being killed. I am speaking of iraqi's and iraqi civilians being killed.

the scenario is almost the same.

Almost, but Hussein's regime was, well, evil, more facts were at hand. To me, it's more comparable to stopping someone trying to shoot someone else.

There is a train loaded with bombs, that, MIGHT, be being shipped to NYC.. but, were not sure, we don't know if they are, or if the bombs exist, or if they will ever be shipped, or even when. Now, we can either let that train, that might or might not exist, roll to NYC, OR, we can go and bomb the heck out of it, and kill anyone who might be associated with the train, in order to save the people, that, if the train exists, would die in NYC....


Its the same judgment sort of isn't it?

You wouldn't have to kill anyone involved, just stop the train with the bombs.

It's more the mentality that was in effect pre-9/11, when it hadn't happened yet. Everybody blames Bush, Clinton, and everyone under the sun except the terrorists involved.

 

[Quath]

Moral relativism is more that's there no absolutes of right and wrong, that's everything's "relative". It's a dangerous attiude.

Right. It means that you have to judge by other measures such as rights and agreements. This are a lot easier to support and derive than religious claims which are not allowed to be questioned.

Right there - "an imaginary being", you just made a moral judgement, an absolute one at that.

Morality is about motivations behind actions. I don't think this qualifies as a moral decision.

The belief in God, or gods is universal, whether Dawkins likes it or not.

Not really. Most people do not believe in God though most believe in some kind of god. However, many people believed that the Earth did not move. Popular opinion about the laws of the universe do not always mean they are true.

It's more the mentality that was in effect pre-9/11, when it hadn't happened yet. Everybody blames Bush, Clinton, and everyone under the sun except the terrorists involved.

The terrorists believe through their religious morality that they have done a great good and will be in heaven with Allah as on of the honored martyrs. Religion is a scary way to determine morality.

 

[lawhammer]

It means that you have to judge by other measures such as rights and agreements. This are a lot easier to support and derive than religious claims which are not allowed to be questioned.

?

Morality - the concept human ethics, right and wrong, good and evil?

Three components - codes of behavior (conduct), the individual conscience, and a shared system of principles and judgements.

Moral relativism is NOT the lack of religious dogma, it's a self-negating system.

Morality is about motivations behind actions. I don't think this qualifies as a moral decision.

Flatly stating there's no God isn't a moral statement? See above for the definition of morality.

Not really. Most people do not believe in God though most believe in some kind of god. However, many people believed that the Earth did not move. Popular opinion about the laws of the universe do not always mean they are true.

Popular opinion means nothing except that the entire world is insane except for Richard Dawkins and a few of his fellow atheists?

The terrorists believe through their religious morality that they have done a great good and will be in heaven with Allah as on of the honored martyrs. Religion is a scary way to determine morality.

No. Radical Islamism is not comparable to any other major religion., even in Dawkin's dreams. Most religions form a positive sense of ethics and morality, OBL's break many of the Christian laws.

Agnosticism or atheism doesn't make you less moral but there is no anchor, other community-type factors (societal, philosophical, blah, blah, blah) can substitute, but that's rare.

 

[peace4all]

lawhammer.. the same as with the other scenario's..

if you could stop the train from hitting anyone, wouldn't you do that?


if you *Can't* stop the train. srry, my bad.

 

[Quath]

Flatly stating there's no God isn't a moral statement? See above for the definition of morality.

If you say there are no elves or unicorns, have you made a morality statement? I don't think so. You just stated your opinion on what exists. When I say that I do not believe in God, my morality is not revealed. I may be sterotyped or prejudged, but what I consider right and wrong is not known by that.

Popular opinion means nothing except that the entire world is insane except for Richard Dawkins and a few of his fellow atheists?

I believe he makes the point that religious people are delusional, not insanity. The difference is that delusional people are tricking themselves into a belief where an insane person may have a brain that is misfiring to give false evidence.

No. Radical Islamism is not comparable to any other major religion., even in Dawkin's dreams. Most religions form a positive sense of ethics and morality, OBL's break many of the Christian laws.

There are many, many examples where religion allows for unethical behavior to flourish. The Inquisition, Crusades, witch trials, pedophile priest, Ku Klux Klan, Nazis, slaughter of the American Indians, killing scientists, Catholic/Protestant wars, etc are examples of bad morality justified by Christian beliefs.

Now you may say that these people do not represent your particular brand of Christianity. But them Muslims will say the same thing about terrorists not representing their particular brand of Islam.

Christianity and Islam are extremely similar. Their main difference is Christianity is older and much more fragmented whereas Islam has not had the time to do this.

 

[Veritas]

I will indulge you Quath, I don't like these questions, but I thought I might as well answer them.

Senario #1 - A train is flying down the track. Right in front of it are 5 people stuck to the track (for whatever reason). However, you can divert the train to another track where there is only 1 person stuck on the track. What do you do?

If all I can do is switch the track, I would.

Senario #2 - A train is flying down the tracks. The tracks split apart and then remerge further down. Five people are stuck at the part where the tracks merge. The main path is clear. However, there is a really fat man on the side path. If you divert it to the side path, this really fat man will slow down the train so that the 5 people trapped further down can escape. Do you divert the train to the side path?

If all I could do is divert the train down the side track, Yes, I would choose to save the 5 by sacrificing the one.

Senario #3 - The train is coming down the tracks. A fat man is watching this from next to the tracks. Five people are stuck further down the tracks. You know if you push the fat man in front of the train, the five people will escape. Do you?

No. I'm right there too. I would jump in front of the train. I'm pretty big.

Senario #4 - Five people need organ transplants or will die that night. A visitor in the waiting room happens to be a good match for all five people. Should this man be forced to give up his organs and die to save 5 people?

No. The difference between this and the first 2 is that the visitors life is not already in danger. He is not stuck in the tracks, without a choice.

Senario #5 - This is the same as Senario #2. The difference is that on the side track, there is a huge weight that will stop the train. Unfortunately, there is a guy that is happening to be leaning against it. If you divert the train, the weight will stop the train, but the guy will die.

Yes. if that is all I could do, I would opt for killing one to save many.

I know all life has value. But in my human nature, I can only believe that the more lives there are, the more value there is to that. God would know better how to judge, but I'm not God. In all of this I would agonize for the rest of my life over what had happened because I don't believe I have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

 

[Quath]

I will indulge you Quath, I don't like these questions, but I thought I might as well answer them.

Thanks for answering them. They are pretty tough questions.

Yes. if that is all I could do, I would opt for killing one to save many.

Yeah, this makes sense. That is why it tripped me up when I also said "no" for senario # 4.

I have been asking these questions to my co-workers and friends. It is interesting because each question is progressively different until we get to #4. And each person usually says, "I rather 1 die than 5 die." But #4 is a real show stopper for everyone. Pretty much everyone says that #4 is wrong because if someone is not part of a bad situation, we don't feel it is right to put them in that bad situation.

I know all life has value. But in my human nature, I can only believe that the more lives there are, the more value there is to that. God would know better how to judge, but I'm not God. In all of this I would agonize for the rest of my life over what had happened because I don't believe I have the right to choose who lives and who dies.

Yeah, I think if any of those cases did happen, there would be a lot of guilt no matter what the person chose.

 

[stranger]

Quath said:
. . . When I say that I do not believe in God, my morality is not revealed.

Your morality is revealed - the twin brother of unbelief is disobedience.
I think that both 'belief and unbelief' in God are very much moral issues.

Concerning 'belief' - Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. I don't make a point of it but the opposite would be true also.

So how is it that you regard yourself as 'neutral' when you are 'in Adam'?

In Christ: Stranger

 

[Quath]

Your morality is revealed - the twin brother of unbelief is disobedience.
I think that both 'belief and unbelief' in God are very much moral issues.

Concerning 'belief' - Abraham believed God and it was reckoned to him as righteousness. I don't make a point of it but the opposite would be true also.

So how is it that you regard yourself as 'neutral' when you are 'in Adam'?

The Ku Klux Klan, Eric Rudolph, Nazis, and the Inquisitors believed in God. Just because someone has belief, it does not mean you know their morality.

On the other end, knowing I disbelieve does not tell you what I think about most morality issues such as slavery, racism, telling the truth, etc.

Or another way to state this is "Does your disbelief in Zeus tell someone about your morality?"

 

[Quath]

I found a good web page that goes even further into looking at morality type questions. It is The Singer Solution to World Poverty.

Basically, it looks at saving a life verses material wealth. It looks at some train hypothetical questions. However, it goes further into showing thaat we make the decison every day in saving a life or spending money on entertainment. It takes a good hard look at this moral situation. It also looks at the extremes (should you give everything away so you have nothing?)

I am curious as to what people think about this type of analysis.

 

[stranger]

The Ku Klux Klan, Eric Rudolph, Nazis, and the Inquisitors believed in God. Just because someone has belief, it does not mean you know their morality.

On the other end, knowing I disbelieve does not tell you what I think about most morality issues such as slavery, racism, telling the truth, etc.

Or another way to state this is "Does your disbelief in Zeus tell someone about your morality?"

Hi Quath,

The fallen nature and its works are what I am referring to. A tree is known by its fruits. Morality, works,motives etc are all 'nature driven' - your list of anti heros who all 'believed in God' nevertheless fail when the Apostle James says: show me your works and I will show you your faith.

Now for your consideration: the fallen nature finds expression in works according to opportunity, environment and circumstances. God for the preservation of humanity has, I believe, placed a 'restraining order' upon it and this is one of the ideas behind 'common grace'. So there is what I call 'latent potential' or simply sin crouching at the door waiting - its desire is for you. . . There is no defense against this apart from the cross and faith in Christ.

So when I say 'I know your morality' I am saying that I have been acquainted with my own 'fallen nature' and the biblical revelation of its potential and properties. 'In Adam' and 'in Christ' are the only two available natures and you partake of one or the other, Unbelief - is serious 'believe' me.

Again 'knowing you disbelieve' . . . I look at the package deal 'in Adam'. As to what you think on any issue - no I don't know the particulars - and what has found expression so far nor what is 'crouching around the corner'.

Disbelief in 'all the Zeus's' tells me something about ones morality but I look for belief in the only true God. There is an offence associated with the foolishness of the Gospel of Jesus Christ!

In Christ: Stranger

 

[carey]

I saw the following series of moral questions in Richard Dawkin's latest book. It is very interesting because when you ask people these questions, people across different cultures and beliefs answer very similar. So here are the senarios:

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #1 - A train is flying down the track. Right in front of it are 5 people stuck to the track (for whatever reason). However, you can divert the train to another track where there is only 1 person stuck on the track. What do you do?

Analysis - Most people say they would switch the tracks. When asked, "Why?" They usually respond something like "It is better to save 5 people at the loss of one person." Or they say some variant of this. But what is interesting is that this is not the full reason. It is the justification we first come up with.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #2 - A train is flying down the tracks. The tracks split apart and then remerge further down. Five people are stuck at the part where the tracks merge. The main path is clear. However, there is a really fat man on the side path. If you divert it to the side path, this really fat man will slow down the train so that the 5 people trapped further down can escape. Do you divert the train to the side path?

Analysis - Most people are against killing the fat man. Logically, it is the same as senario 1. Killing 1 person will save 5.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #3 - The train is coming down the tracks. A fat man is watching this from next to the tracks. Five people are stuck further down the tracks. You know if you push the fat man in front of the train, the five people will escape. Do you?

Analysis - This is pretty much the same as #2. Less people support killing the fat man than in #2.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #4 - Five people need organ transplants or will die that night. A visitor in the waiting room happens to be a good match for all five people. Should this man be forced to give up his organs and die to save 5 people?

Analysis - Very few people think this should be the case. But this case is logically similar to the above cases.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Senario #5 - This is the same as Senario #2. The difference is that on the side track, there is a huge weight that will stop the train. Unfortunately, there is a guy that is happening to be leaning against it. If you divert the train, the weight will stop the train, but the guy will die.

Analysis - Most people are ok with killing the single person. However, this is entirely equivalent to #2. The only difference is whether the weight is attached to the person or not.

---------------------------------------------------------------------

Anyway, I thought this stuff was pretty interesting. I know I am logically inconsistent on this, but I am trying to work it out. I wonder if others will have a hard time with these questions?

I would run toward the train and try to get the engineers attention to stop but the five would probably die because I would not feel I could choose the 1 mans death. Unless he was my enemy and would kill me because I am a Christian or something.