Is morality objective?

[BobK]

I guess we will leave it at a difference in opinion.

What on Earth gives you the right to decide what to do with my money?

 

[Famine]

There is no right or wrong answer in the trolly problem. You can have your opinion, but there is no right answer. It all depends on the eye of the beholder.

No.

If you intervene, you are now responsible for the outcome. If you do not, you remain not responsible for it. If you think any other way, then you are, by your own reasoning, responsible for any premature death or accident - even those you could not possibly have done anything to prevent - by not intervening. Bad news - since your double-post, there's been 5,000 deaths globally.

If you intervene, you are responsible for the outcome of death. You made the choice to kill someone. You did that.

I genuinly try to understand why one would think that theft= theft and there is no way justifying it.

Again, you're on justifications. That has nothing to do with the concept of morality. Justification is what the law uses to determine whether you should be permitted to break the law you broke based on the reasons for your action and the outcome. Theft is theft. The justification part is what follows in the law to determine the nuance.

The law might find you guilty for not acting to save five people at the expense of one (in Germany and China it probably will). The law might find you not guilty for acting to kill one person to save five (in most places it probably will; you may find yourself subject to a civil damages suit from the family or estate of the person you decided to kill). The law has nothing to do with morality.


Stop using the law - which permits all kinds of atrocities - to guide your thinking and you'll have an easier time understanding this.

 

[PocketZeven]

What on Earth gives you the right to decide what to do with my money?

What on earth gives you the right to decide what is your property?

No.

If you intervene, you are now responsible for the outcome. If you do not, you remain not responsible for it. If you think any other way, then you are, by your own reasoning, responsible for any premature death or accident - even those you could not possibly have done anything to prevent - by not intervening. Bad news - since your double-post, there's been 5,000 deaths globally.

If you intervene, you are responsible for the outcome of death. You made the choice to kill someone. You did that.

Again, you're on justifications. That has nothing to do with the concept of morality. Justification is what the law uses to determine whether you should be permitted to break the law you broke based on the reasons for your action and the outcome. Theft is theft. The justification part is what follows in the law to determine the nuance.

The law might find you guilty for not acting to save five people at the expense of one (in Germany and China it probably will). The law might find you not guilty for acting to kill one person to save five (in most places it probably will; you may find yourself subject to a civil damages suit from the family or estate of the person you decided to kill). The law has nothing to do with morality.


Stop using the law - which permits all kinds of atrocities - to guide your thinking and you'll have an easier time understanding this.

I understand the confusion now. The discussion was moved to this forum (not by me). because of the trolly problem. It wasnt about the concept morality to begin with. I fully agreed that tax technically can be theft. But with additional context it can justified. Why cant I speak about justification?

That said. There are many writers/ philosophers that discuss ethics and morality and to suggest that you are right and everyone not agreeing with you is just wrong on this subject, is kind of shortsighted.

I am not using the law to guide my thinking. I am using human ethics.

 

[Famine]

What on earth gives you the right to decide what is your property?

Right to self.

If I sell my labour to someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own the labour I agree to give them. If I agree to exchange what I own with someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own what I agree to give them. No third party is entitled to any part of that (unless there are further agreements) because no-one but me is entitled to my labour, because no-one but me is entitled to my body and mind - nor am I entitled to anyone else's labour, or their body or mind.

I understand the confusion now. The discussion was moved to this forum (not by me). because of the trolly problem. It wasnt about the concept morality to begin with.

There's no confusion. I've not addressed anything but your posts about morality and the trolley problem. I don't really care about what brought you here.

I fully agreed that tax technically can be theft. But with additional context it can justified. Why cant I speak about justification?

You can - and some forms of tax are in fact not theft but an agreed, voluntary exchange (income tax and inheritance tax are not among them) - but it's not relevant to morality.

That said. There are many writers/ philosophers that discuss ethics and morality and to suggest that you are right and everyone not agreeing with you is just wrong on this subject, is kind of shortsighted.

The number of people agreeing and not agreeing is not relevant. That is subjectivity at its finest.

I am not using the law to guide my thinking. I am using human ethics.

And yet you keep bring up justification, which is what the law uses to determine if, and how much, someone who has broken the law should be punished for it. That's three steps down the road from morality.

 

[PocketZeven]

Right to self.

If I sell my labour to someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own the labour I agree to give them. If I agree to exchange what I own with someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own what I agree to give them. No third party is entitled to any part of that (unless there are further agreements) because no-one but me is entitled to my labour, because no-one but me is entitled to my body and mind - nor am I entitled to anyone else's labour, or their body or mind.

There's no confusion. I've not addressed anything but your posts about morality and the trolley problem. I don't really care about what brought you here.

You can - and some forms of tax are in fact not theft but an agreed, voluntary exchange (income tax and inheritance tax are not among them) - but it's not relevant to morality.

The number of people agreeing and not agreeing is not relevant. That is subjectivity at its finest.

And yet you keep bring up justification, which is what the law uses to determine if, and how much, someone who has broken the law should be punished for it. That's three steps down the road from morality.

I agree rights are given between to individuals by mutual agreement. If there is no agreement, the right is not there.

The discussion was moved to this thread, probably on the premise of theft being not moral? I am not sure why.

What is wrong with bringing up justification? Why cant I bring it up? Justification does not automatically have to do with laws. Then lets stop talking about morality.

 

[Danoff]

Not pulling the lever holds the same responsibility as pulling the lever, either case represents an exercise of choice. If you don't pull the lever then somebody dies.

Famine answered this one very nicely, exactly as I would have.

If you act you have killed someone. You have. If you do not, you have not. You cannot claim that not acting to not kill someone is equivalent to acting to kill someone unless you also accept that every time you have not acted to not kill someone, you have killed them. I've got some bad news for you on that front - there were a lot of murders today that you didn't stop, thus you committed...

You commit an infinite number of inactions every day, many of which result in death, and you can be tried by conflicting inactions which would land you a murderer either way. For example, you've killed some people by not saving them yesterday, but you literally could not have saved other people yesterday if you had saved some of them yesterday. Therefore no matter what you did (and didn't) do yesterday, you'd be guilty of killing hundreds of people due to inaction. It can go back further too, because you're also guilty not just of what you didn't do yesterday, but for what you haven't done since the beginning of your life to set yourself up to save lives yesterday. You could have been a doctor, you could have been performing surgeries in Africa... all of those possibilities are inactions that you become responsible for when you equate pulling the lever with not pulling it.

There is a massive distinction between inaction and action.

I'm not sure if this qualifies for this thread but, I have an interesting real life scenario I witnessed and got involved in. But I'll keep the intro to the scenario simple just to see the initial reactions.

You and a friend are sitting on your porch, a little girl and her brother are walking by after getting off the school bus, you see a man from the neighborhood you and your friend vaguely know walking behind said kids, you think nothing of it and continue to do what y'all were doing, a minute or so later you her the little girl screaming "stop, leave me alone!", you two look and see the neighbor trying to grab the little girl, you and your friend know he has no kids or any relationship to the girl and her brother.
What do YOU do?
Call the police, hope they get there in time and let them deal with it?
Jump in and help the little girl and hold him till police arrive?
Or jump in, help the little girl, apply some "hood justice" and wait for the police to arrive?

I'll tell y'all what we did but I want to see some responses and how y'all would handle that scenario first.

Are you asking what would we do or what is right to do? Because there are options within what is right. Calling the police is moral, intervening is moral. What would I do? I'd like to think I would intervene. This problem is most classically expressed as the scenario where you see a child drowning in a pool and choose whether or not to help. That's at least commonly used in law school in the US.

The discussion was moved to this thread, probably on the premise of theft being not moral? I am not sure why.

Because you're failing the trolley problem in the tax example. You're trying to save 5 at the expense of 1, but robbing the property of the 1 and giving it to the 5.

 

[PocketZeven]

Because you're failing the trolley problem in the tax example. You're trying to save 5 at the expense of 1, but robbing the property of the 1 and giving it to the 5.

You cant "fail" the trolley problem. Perhaps in your opinion. Its an ethical question so you cant fail it.

 

[BobK]

What on earth gives you the right to decide what is your property?

@Famine answered that quite well, so I shan't elaborate. Meanwhile you ducked my question, so I shall ask it again:

What on Earth gives you the right to decide what to do with my money?

 

[PocketZeven]

@Famine answered that quite well, so I shan't elaborate. Meanwhile you ducked my question, so I shall ask it again:

It was rhetorical. Rights in real life are given by society not an individual.

If I decide to steal from you to help another. I made an ethical choice that you dont agree with. I disagree with most that human rights are somehow there since the the beginning of intelligence. They are putting a lot of weight on their rights and even perhaps suggest it supercedes the law (which ironically grants citizens rights)

 

[Famine]

You cant "fail" the trolley problem. Perhaps in your opinion. Its an ethical question so you cant fail it.

You're now guilty of failing to prevent 106 deaths a minute worldwide. Enjoy your incarceration.

Rights in real life are given by society not an individual.

This, again, is the argument that rights are only what laws say they are. That, again, is law, not rights. This argument literally holds that when slavery was legal, slaves had no rights and slaveholders had the right to own slaves, which is patent bollocks - the law ignored human rights of one group and granted immoral powers to another. This argument literally holds that the North Korean population is not having its rights infringed because North Korea's laws allow it to imprison people (and a generation of their family either side) on a whim, starve and work them to death, and rape their women and children, which is patent bollocks - the law ignores human rights of one group and grants immoral powers to another.

The stance that rights are what society allows means that when the law allows for prison guards to rape women (as in North Korea), women have no right to their own bodies. Which is reprehensible.


The correct version of your sentence is "Rights in real life are protected or denied by society, but always held by an individual regardless".

 

[Imari]

You commit an infinite number of inactions every day, many of which result in death, and you can be tried by conflicting inactions which would land you a murderer either way. For example, you've killed some people by not saving them yesterday, but you literally could not have saved other people yesterday if you had saved some of them yesterday. Therefore no matter what you did (and didn't) do yesterday, you'd be guilty of killing hundreds of people due to inaction. It can go back further too, because you're also guilty not just of what you didn't do yesterday, but for what you haven't done since the beginning of your life to set yourself up to save lives yesterday. You could have been a doctor, you could have been performing surgeries in Africa... all of those possibilities are inactions that you become responsible for when you equate pulling the lever with not pulling it.

There is a massive distinction between inaction and action.

I think in a real world practical sense, people distinguish between situations where they can have an effect and not, situations that they were aware of and not. This doesn't matter as much for the theoretical discussion, but I think it starts to illustrate why real world behaviour starts to deviate quite a bit from what theory might suggest. Despite a number of people subscribing to PocketZeven-esque morals, they're not worrying themselves to sleep over all the people they've failed to save.

You cant "fail" the trolley problem. Perhaps in your opinion. Its an ethical question so you cant fail it.

You can certainly fail it by giving a logically inconsistent answer. Any answer has to at least be consistent and defensible.

 

[PocketZeven]

You're now guilty of failing to prevent 106 deaths a minute worldwide. Enjoy your incarceration.

This, again, is the argument that rights are only what laws say they are. That, again, is law, not rights. This argument literally holds that when slavery was legal, slaves had no rights and slaveholders had the right to own slaves, which is patent bollocks - the law ignored human rights of one group and granted immoral powers to another. This argument literally holds that the North Korean population is not having its rights infringed because North Korea's laws allow it to imprison people (and a generation of their family either side) on a whim, starve and work them to death, and rape their women and children, which is patent bollocks - the law ignores human rights of one group and grants immoral powers to another.

The stance that rights are what society allows means that when the law allows for prison guards to rape women (as in North Korea), women have no right to their own bodies. Which is reprehensible.


The correct version of your sentence is "Rights in real life are protected or denied by society, but always held by an individual regardless".

That depends on who decides i am "guilty".

Rights are decided by society. You have the right to vote in the UK, yet not in the US. You have a right to healthcare, and an american does not. Etc. The right to slavery was not a right when society decided it wasnt.

Despite a number of people subscribing to PocketZeven-esque morals, they're not worrying themselves to sleep over all the people they've failed to save.

You can certainly fail it by giving a logically inconsistent answer. Any answer has to at least be consistent and defensible.

I am confused? I did not say inaction is right or wrong. I said there are no right and wrong answers.

I guess you can "fail" it in an academic environment ethics class. But it is an ethical question that has no "failed" answer. Just perhaps unethical.

 

[Famine]

That depends on who decides i am "guilty".

You did.

Rights are decided by society. You have the right to vote in the UK, yet not in the US. You have a right to healthcare, and an american does not. Etc. The right to slavery was not a right when society decided it wasnt.

That's laws again - and again a position that holds that North Korea's can imprison dissenters and their families, where prison guards can then starve and work them to death, and rape women, without violating their rights, because the law says so.

That's a pretty repugnant position to hold.

 

[PocketZeven]

You did.

That's laws again - and again a position that holds that North Korea's can imprison dissenters and their families, where prison guards can then starve and work them to death, and rape women, without violating their rights, because the law says so.

That's a pretty repugnant position to hold.

Interesting. But no.

No those are definately rights. Kind of low of you to even suggest I have a positive position towards North korean rape and deathcamps. I still cant figure out your personal problem with me? Does the actual North korean law actually state that its a right though?

edit: correction edit: correction 2

 

[TenEightyOne]

There is a massive distinction between inaction and action.

Generally, yes. I could have become a surgeon and then have saved a life. I didn't. However, that action is not the same as the trolley problem where the actor is placed into the ready-made scenario. In that scenario there are specific consequences of action or inaction, the observer is asked to choose (and justify) whether they would act (pull the lever) or leave the inevitable events unchanged.

 

[Famine]

Again you need to learn how to Multiquote because even in a two-point post it's not clear that you're answering two points separately.

Interesting. But no.

Yes. Your position on the trolley problem holds you responsible for lives you did not save.

No those are definately rights. Kind of low of you to even suggest I support North korean rape and deathcamps. I still cant figure out your personal problem with me? Does the actual korea actually state that its a right though?

All of your examples are laws. I can vote in the UK because there's a law that says I can, but not in the USA because there's a law that says I can't. Our health service was established by laws. These are laws.

I didn't say that you supported North Korea's actions towards its citizens. I said that your position holds that it is not infringing anyone's rights because its laws do not recognise these rights.

You believe rights are granted by societies, and North Korea's society does not grant the right to be free from illegitimate imprisonment, or for humane treatment of prisoners. Thus you believe that North Korea's women do not have the right not to be raped by prison guards - and that's an appalling point of view to hold.

If you do not hold this opinion, then you also cannot hold the opinion that societies grant rights.

I still cant figure out your personal problem with me?

Here we go again. I'm discussing your opinion (and showing you the huge error in your thinking), not you.

 

[PocketZeven]

Generally, yes. I could have become a surgeon and then have saved a life. I didn't. However, that action is not the same as the trolley problem where the actor is placed into the ready-made scenario. In that scenario there are specific consequences of action or inaction, the observer is asked to choose (and justify) whether they would act (pull the lever) or leave the inevitable events unchanged.

It hink you made a mistake. That wasnt my quote. It was Danoff.

Yes. Your position on the trolley problem holds you responsible for lives you did not save.

You believe rights are granted by societies, and North Korea's society does not grant the right to be free from illegitimate imprisonment, or for humane treatment of prisoners. Thus you believe that North Korea's women do not have the right not to be raped by prison guards - and that's an appalling point of view to hold.

If you do not hold this opinion, then you also cannot hold the opinion that societies grant rights.

No why are you deliberately misenterpreting? My position on the trolley problem depends on the circumstances Danoff proposed many of them. None of them even suggest that I am responsible for their lives.

What the hell? How do you even go from "rights are granted by society" to you hold the opinion that women inN-korean prison do not have the right to not be raped?

Firstly Rapes in N-korean prison does not suggest at all that N-korean women dont have the right to be raped. How do you even know North korean society accept that women are allowed to be raped? What about rapes in N-american prisons?

 

[Exorcet]

If killing someone for stealing candy is objectively morally justified as @Exorcet suggests above then I'm surprised Taleb Rebhi Ali Jawhe's legal team didn't appeal when he was sentenced earlier this year for shooting somebody he thought had stole some but was in fact innocent. If there was a clear and present threat to his candy stock perhaps he felt morally justified in pulling the trigger.

Well if the theft did not actually occur that brings into question if you were actually justified in defending your property (which would not have been in danger). What I can say here is that I would have not killed someone over something of so little value and it would have made more sense for the police to handle it as that's their job and it might prevent incidents like this, but that's only my own subjective judgement.

You don't lack that right and nor do you lack the right to defend your own life. All rights are not all compatible with all other rights. Respect went out of the window as the attacker came in. The rights did not. Threatening somebody else's life put the attacker in a position where their own life was in danger. Who was justified in threatening the other's right the most? Clearly we feel it's the person being threatened by the instigator, but it's for the society to decide through law.

Rights would only be incompatible in the sense that you give them up by violating others rights. We invoke rights to solve disputes because no side in a dispute can claim objective superiority over the other. A party either realizes this or they don't. If they don't realize this fundamental fact, they're at risk for violating the rights of others.

Society can make decisions through laws, but it too can either recognize the objective nature or morality or fail to do so. Our society currently fails because it enacts law through force.

You can justify it, you just can't justify it objectively. In such a case, I might well choose whatever I thought would have the least emotional and psychological impact on myself; essentially whatever allowed me to live with myself afterwards. That answer would be different from person to person, but I think would seem like a reasonable application of a value judgement to the situation.

It would be understandable for someone to follow this logic if they actually found themselves faced with the trolley problem, on that I agree. The distinction between objective and subjective justification is important though. No matter how reasonable a solution may seem to you, someone else might disagree (as you touched on with varying individual responses to the problem) and there is no way to objectively rank opinions outside of determining if they respect rights. We can get around this by coming to an agreement before hand on how to rank subjective values, but for that to work morally the agreement must be voluntary.



EDIT

I left out a quote:

If there were no people, there wouldnt be rights.

edit: How do you think modern rights have come to be? In the animal kingdom there is no such thing.

If there were no people, there would not be a need for rights, but they would still exist. There would still be no way to rank subjective ideas.

Modern legal rights? They came to be because people made them up. These aren't actually rights though. Actual rights have always existed. Laws generally try to acknowledge these rights but they're also generally setup in such a way as to force a stable society at the expense of some portion of the population.

 

[Famine]

No why are you deliberately misenterpreting?

Dude... no.

My position on the trolley problem depends on the circumstances Danoff proposed many of them. None of them even suggest that I am responsible for their lives

Your position on the trolley problem - that it is a utilitarian decision of how many lives (and of what quality) that guides whether you should pull the lever or not - places the individual who is not responsible for any of the circumstances leading to the conclusion in a position of responsibility over the conclusion. This is wrong - it is not a choice of killing five people or one person, but a choice of killing one person or no people. Anyone who does not touch the switch does not become responsible for killing five people, because no-one can be held responsible for an outcome they did not create or participate in. Your position is that they are responsible for five deaths or one death, thus they are responsible for deaths they failed to prevent.

What the hell? How do you even go from "rights are granted by society" to you hold the opinion that women inN-korean prison do not have the right to not be raped

I very patiently walked you through this twice and you quoted it twice. You have no reason to ask this question.

If you hold that society grants rights, you must - must - hold that a society that permits grossly inhumane acts is not violating rights, because by your own definition, that society grants rights and does not grant the right to be free from inhumane acts.

By that position, owning slaves was a right of slaveholders, because a society granted it. By that position, segregation of a black population was a right, because a society granted it. By that position, the mutilation of girls' genitalia by their fathers is a right, because a society granted it. By that position, the murder and consumption of other humans was a right, because a society granted it. By that position, the starvation and forced labour of political prisoners and their family is a right, because a society grants it. By that position, the use of prisoners for sexual gratification of their guards is a right, because a society granted it. By that position, the forced labour of and mass execution of Jews was a right, because a society granted it.

The position that society grants rights is a position that holds that where a society allows for segregation, racism, sexism, sexual abuse, FGM, slavery, oppression, and even state-sponsored mass murder, it is not in violation of anyone's rights to do so.

If you don't like that - and you seem to find the suggestion offensive - it might be an idea to rethink the position that society grants rights. It doesn't, for reference. It can create laws that recognise or deny rights, but it can't grant them.

Firstly Rapes in N-korean prison does not suggest at all that N-korean women dont have the right to be raped.

Nor did I extend the statement to wider society - although since North Korea permits imprisonment on a whim, really any woman is one step away from state-permitted violation.

How do you even know North korean society accept that women are allowed to be raped?

Camp survivor escapees. North Korean society is what the ruling Kim family say it is.

What about rapes in N-american prisons?

Literal whataboutism there, but what about it? Does the USA permit prison guards to violate women after imprisoning them without trial for being related to someone classed as a dissident? It is not a comparable situation.

 

[PocketZeven]

Your position on the trolley problem - that it is a utilitarian decision of how many lives (and of what quality) that guides whether you should pull the lever or not - places the individual who is not responsible for any of the circumstances leading to the conclusion in a position of responsibility over the conclusion. This is wrong - it is not a choice of killing five people or one person, but a choice of killing one person or no people. Anyone who does not touch the switch does not become responsible for killing five people, because no-one can be held responsible for an outcome they did not create or participate in. Your position is that they are responsible for five deaths or one death, thus they are responsible for deaths they failed to prevent.

I am going to ignore the example of No-korean women raped in N-korean prisons. You picked this controversial and extreme example, without even truly adressing properly how someone even has the right to property, before it even is violated. You probably think income tax is theft. I disagree as the government has a right to tax people.

My postition as stated that there is no right or wrong answer in this question. Neither did I was my postition that the one pulling or not pulling the lever is responsible either way. Nor did I even confirm or deny the question is about killing one or none at all. My position was that every situation can be ethically motivated.

Again you are making assumptions about a position I did not take.

What is your position in this example? What if one of the 1 person was your brother/sister and the other completely unknowns?

 

[Famine]

I am going to ignore the example of No-korean women raped in N-korean prisons. You picked this controversial and extreme example

No more controversial or extreme than slavery:

The right to slavery was not a right when society decided it wasnt.

Thus it was a right when society decided it was...

Your position is that society grants rights. That not only requires you to also hold several other utterly repugnant positions that you're clearly trying to distance yourself from, but - yet again - confuses what rights are with what laws are.

without even truly adressing properly how someone even has the right to property, before it even is violated.

Fun fact: You quoted me doing it.

Right to self.

If I sell my labour to someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own the labour I agree to give them. If I agree to exchange what I own with someone, I own what they agree to give me and they own what I agree to give them. No third party is entitled to any part of that (unless there are further agreements) because no-one but me is entitled to my labour, because no-one but me is entitled to my body and mind - nor am I entitled to anyone else's labour, or their body or mind.

Ta, and indeed, daa.

You probably think income tax is theft. I disagree as the government has a right to tax people.

I mean, I've stated it in this thread, so...

How is a government - a third party - entitled to any portion of my labour as agreed with the person I sell my labour to? Why does a government own any part of my body or mind?

 

[Dotini]

Why does a government own any part of my body or mind?

Here in the US, I have probably uttered the Pledge of Allegiance thousands of times. I take it that means I owe my allegiance and loyalty to this country & its government. So, in a sense, they own my loyalty and allegiance. They drafted (commanded) my body to war, and it went. My mind didn't like it, but it obeyed.

 

[Danoff]

Generally, yes. I could have become a surgeon and then have saved a life. I didn't. However, that action is not the same as the trolley problem where the actor is placed into the ready-made scenario. In that scenario there are specific consequences of action or inaction, the observer is asked to choose (and justify) whether they would act (pull the lever) or leave the inevitable events unchanged.

I'm not seeing a distinction. In both cases people died based on your inaction. People died just now based on your inaction. If I find a specific case of a starving kid in Africa and post it here, are you then responsible? Because you know specifically about it? I'll tell you right now I could find one, isn't that sufficient knowledge? You're trying to draw a line where there isn't one.

Here in the US, I have probably uttered the Pledge of Allegiance thousands of times. I take it that means I owe my allegiance and loyalty to this country & its government. So, in a sense, they own my loyalty and allegiance. They drafted (commanded) my body to war, and it went. My mind didn't like it, but it obeyed.

How long does the pledge commit your allegiance to your country? And how does that confer ownership of your body?

 

[BobK]

It was rhetorical. Rights in real life are given by society not an individual.

No. My question was not rhetorical. So I'll ask it for a third time:

What on Earth gives you the right to decide what to do with my money?

Explain to me how someone else has more right to the fruits of my labor than I do.

If I decide to steal from you to help another. I made an ethical choice that you dont agree with.

It doesn't matter how "ethical"your decision is. The point is it is not your decision to make. For instance, how do you know I wasn't planning to give it to someone even more in need? What gives you the right to seize that which is mine? Just because you believe there's a better use than which it can be put? You are condoning thievery , just like you've already condoned rape, murder and slavery.

 

[ryzno]

Are you asking what would we do or what is right to do?

I'm more interested in what y'all would do. IMO the response shows me where your morals lie.

Because there are options within what is right. Calling the police is moral, intervening is moral.

*I should have added "do nothing" in the options. Will add to post in a few. I agree only calling the police is moral. But knowing something could possibly happen to the girl if the guy got away with her while I'm waiting for the police would eat at me if you know what I mean.

What would I do? I'd like to think I would intervene.

May I ask what's your definition of intervening? Simply calling the police could be looked at as intervening.

This problem is most classically expressed as the scenario where you see a child drowning in a pool and choose whether or not to to intervene.

If I saw a kid drowning I'd hop in and do what I can and tell someone else to call the police. If no one is around I'm not going to run and waste 5 valuable minutes trying to explain to 911 what's happening.
----
Me and my friend jumped up, ran over, shoved the guy away from the girl and her brother and told them to run home and tell their mom to call the police. He then pulled a knife on us(IMO that showed he didn't have good intentions) we then tussled until my friend got stabbed in the ankle somehow. By then a few other neighbors saw what was happening and jumped in too. I think he had to have been on something cause after literally busting his head open and leaking from a 2×4 and getting some hood justice from 5 men he wouldn't go down till the police came. He spent 2 weeks in the hospital, turned out he was a registered sex offender and illegally living in the neighborhood cause he never told the community... We were questioned and released, he's still in jail serving a 10 year sentence.
I don't know if it's the definition of morality but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't do anything or simply called the police and something happened to her. I know I can't help or see every little thing that happens. If he had a gun we probably wouldn't have confronted him and just yelled and called the police, but I feel it's my obligation to help keep our community safe even if it involves risking my life.
I know scenarios like Trevon Martin can end up VERY badly but as I said, we saw him and thought nothing of him originally.

 

[Danoff]

*I should have added "do nothing" in the options. Will add to post in a few. I agree only calling the police is moral. But knowing something could possibly happen to the girl if the guy got away with her while I'm waiting for the police would eat at me if you know what I mean.

I do, and I'll return to that.

May I ask what's your definition of intervening? Simply calling the police could be looked at as intervening.

I meant personally go try to help.

If I saw a kid drowning I'd hop in and do what I can and tell someone else to call the police. If no one is around I'm not going to run and waste 5 valuable minutes trying to explain to 911 what's happening.

I think most people are this way. But do you imprison someone who pulls up a chair and watches while the kid drowns? That's the classical question.

Me and my friend jumped up, ran over, shoved the guy away from the girl and her brother and told them to run home and tell their mom to call the police. He then pulled a knife on us(IMO that showed he didn't have good intentions) we then tussled until my friend got stabbed in the ankle somehow. By then a few other neighbors saw what was happening and jumped in too. I think he had to have been on something cause after literally busting his head open and leaking from a 2×4 and getting some hood justice from 5 men he wouldn't go down till the police came. He spent 2 weeks in the hospital, turned out he was a registered sex offender and illegally living in the neighborhood cause he never told the community... We were questioned and released, he's still in jail serving a 10 year sentence.
I don't know if it's the definition of morality but I wouldn't be able to sleep at night if I didn't do anything or simply called the police and something happened to her. I know I can't help or see every little thing that happens. If he had a gun we probably wouldn't have confronted him and just yelled and called the police, but I feel it's my obligation to help keep our community safe even if it involves risking my life.
I know scenarios like Trevon Martin can end up VERY badly but as I said, we saw him and thought nothing of him originally.

I understand the concept of being deeply emotionally impacted at the notion that you could have done something to help someone, and chose not to. But you need to understand that you're deluding yourself into thinking that you're not passing up these exact kinds of opportunities every single day. You had one in front of you, and you did something. But you have others almost as clearly in front of you and you do not do something. Your brain is specifically wired by natural selection to treat these two situations differently, but it is not a logical distinction, it is an emotional or instinctual one.

If I go get a photo of a starving kid in africa that needs your help right now, you'd dismiss it as somehow not your problem, even though you did not dismiss your particular situation as "not your problem", mostly due to an arbitrary (somewhat tribal) distinction of what qualifies as your "neighborhood". I'm not trying to change your decisions here, I'm not trying to make you feel bad about your choice (not that I even could), and I'm not trying to tell you you made the wrong one. I'm trying to tell you that you're making the other choice right now, and you're more ok with it because of tribal survival instincts - not because one is a moral responsibility and the other is not.

Intervening personally, calling for help, not intervening, all of those are moral choices (I think technically one might be an amoral choices). You're not morally obligated to risk your life for someone else, but it is not immoral to do so.

 

[UKMikey]

Well if the theft did not actually occur that brings into question if you were actually justified in defending your property (which would not have been in danger).

I'm not sure whether the concept of mens rea exists in US law but at the time the petrol clerk killed the candy thief he didn't know he was innocent, which is why I asked whether stealing the candy was sufficient justification in his mind for the use of lethal force and whether the court would take that into account or whether the law holds a different position to your earlier post as quoted below:

If you steal something and refuse any attempts at returning it, then yes I'm justified in killing you for it even if it's candy.

Hopefully I'm not taking the above quote out of context.

What I can say here is that I would have not killed someone over something of so little value and it would have made more sense for the police to handle it as that's their job and it might prevent incidents like this, but that's only my own subjective judgement.

I just don't see how killing someone over candy could be objectively justified in any society. It reminds me of how England used to operate a "Bloody Code" system of law where people were hanged for petty theft. Life was cheap in those days.

 

[Exorcet]

I'm not sure whether the concept of mens rea exists in US law but at the time the petrol clerk killed the candy thief he didn't know he was innocent, which is why I asked whether stealing the candy was sufficient justification in his mind for the use of lethal force and whether the court would take that into account or whether the law holds a different position to your earlier post as quoted below:

There is a difference between being unsure of the persons innocence and being sure that they're intending to commit a crime. If the shooter was unsure, he definitely acted prematurely. I mentioned attempts at returning the stolen item in part to cover some of the uncertainly involved. You can't merely suspect that someone is guilty of something and then kill or detain them.

I can't tell you what is sufficient justification in the shooter's mind, that could be anything, even if I disagree with it.

I just don't see how killing someone over candy could be objectively justified in any society. It reminds me of how England used to operate a "Bloody Code" system of law where people were hanged for petty theft. Life was cheap in those days.

Putting this in the context of society changes things a bit, like I said before, people can agree to handle situations in specific ways. If society wants to say that it's wrong to shoot someone over candy, then it's wrong - if that idea is voluntarily accepted.

 

[ryzno]

But do you imprison someone who pulls up a chair and watches while the kid drowns?

That's a tricky one! Is said person the only one around and did nothing cause they can't swim and no phone? Are they the parent and know their child can't swim and said parent can't swim? Were they the one who possibly shoved the kid in and sat there and watched? I see two questions that would justify jail time.
People gather around incidents all the time and simply pull out their phone and start recording.

But you have others almost as clearly in front of you and you do not do something.

I won't argue that. I see homeless people all the time, I help who I deem can, and yes that voice in the back of my head debates if they deserve it.
I had a well dressed dude with golds in his mouth at a gas station ask me for 5 bucks, I said let me see what change I have when I come out, just to see him selling a junkie a bag of crack when I came out. He didn't NEED my help.

If I go get a photo of a starving kid in africa that needs your help right now, you'd dismiss it as somehow not your problem, even though you did not dismiss your particular situation as "not your problem", mostly due to an arbitrary (somewhat tribal) distinction of what qualifies as your "neighborhood".

See above, I do feel bad for those kids, if I helped/worried about every child/person in need I'd probably break myself mentally or financially.

Looking at what I just typed I can see the tribal mentality you mentioned... But I've also seen people asking for help that don't need it. I know not everyone has been through/seen what I have.

 

[TenEightyOne]

I'm not seeing a distinction.

In the "how many people died today because we didn't become surgeons" scenario you take all the what-ifs from our whole lives as evidence of non-actions. The variables are enormous, possibly infinite. The Trolley Problem (and variations) are potted fixed-variable scenarios in which you will specifically do one of two things. Those two choices are presented and you are asked to justify which choice you make. The distinctions are clear.