The Moral Dilemma Thread - Politics Forum.org | PoFo

Wandering the information superhighway, he came upon the last refuge of civilization, PoFo, the only forum on the internet ...

For the discussion of Philosophy. Discuss thought from Socrates to the Enlightenment and beyond!

Moderator: PoFo Agora Mods

Forum rules: No one line posts please. Religious topics may be debated in this forum, but those of religious belief who specifically wish to avoid threads being derailed by atheist arguments might prefer to use the Spirituality forum.
By B0ycey
#14792630
Inspired by a post on TLTE, I have created this thread. Every so often I will put on a moral dilemma and see what people's responses are. Anyone else can feel free to do the same if you find a moral dilemma that you find interesting. The first one will be on self sacrifice.

Moral Dilemma One:

You find yourself locked in a cage hanging over a cliff edge on a very high mountain top. Next to you is another cage with the ten most important people you know locked inside it. This can be anyone. Your mother, father, sister, children, best friend etc. In your cage there is a remote control with the following text next to it.

'If you push the green button your cage will swing to platform and open the cage door but the other cage drops and everyone dies. If you push the red button the other cage swings to the platform and opens their cage door but your cage drops and you will die. If you do nothing in the next hour both cages drop and everyone dies.'

What would you do?
#14792671
I would let the other cage be set down and open. I would rather die. We all have to die sometime, right?

I would not be able to live with myself if I lived and I let my loved ones die, just to save myself. I would feel very guilty.
#14792679
If the 10 most important people to me died then 'd probably end up in severe depression and completely alone shortly after since my current list of people whom are very close and important to me only has 8 people in it maybe 9 but not sure about that last one and would mostly result in me taking my own life . So its useless to keep alive.
I would let them live.
#14792709
All else being equal I would sacrifice myself for my family but a lot of that depends upon my son being among the important people.

The only situation I can think of where I would do the opposite is where I was very young and the "important people" were all very old. In that circumstance I am their future, if I live.
#14792724
But if I sacrifice myself, I'd put them into a severe and possibly suicidal depression. Would I really want them to suffer survivor's guilt for the rest of their lives? Wouldn't it be more noble if I took that burden upon myself? After all, they'd suffer for about thirty seconds, but I would suffer for years.

:excited:
By Decky
#14792756
You are the true heir to Kant Frollein, German ethical philosophy has come a long way.
By Decky
#14792769
I would hope to have courage to do the right thing and take the fall myself but I am well aware of my own moral failings. I know what I would try to do but I have no idea what I would actually end up doing. :hmm:
#14792774
Considering the silliness of these hypothetical "dilemmas," I'm surprised that anyone is taking them seriously.
#14792778
Frollein wrote:Considering the silliness of these hypothetical "dilemmas," I'm surprised that anyone is taking them seriously.


It's just a bit of fun. No need to take it seriously. And welcome to Agora.

@Decky. I would pretty much echo your post. But having two children who I'm sure would be in the cage, I think I will find the strength to do the right thing.
#14792822
I'd really like to put all those nobles in that cage for real and put those declarations to the test.
#14792854
Frollein wrote:I'd really like to put all those nobles in that cage for real and put those declarations to the test.


I'm just a few years into my forties now and have no interest in getting older. I wasn't being especially noble as to a degree I think life is a pretty miserable thing with lots of suffering and inconvenience and it just gets worse as you get older as you also have to deal with a body that is falling apart. Honestly death is a bit of an escape from all that.
#14793121
Frollein wrote:all those nobles

I think there's another way to look at the decision to sacrifice yourself and save your family and friends, that puts a less 'noble' spin on it. Couldn't it just as easily be the case that you press the red for selfish reasons, rather than noble ones? As a few people have already said - and I'm inclined to agree - the guilt of allowing your close friends and family to die would be unbearable. So, arguably it's more accurate to characterise your sacrifice as a selfish act in order to avoid that pain. What do you think?

That said, I don't want to get too Ayn Rand about it! Compassion for your loved ones will inevitably play a huge part in your decision making, but the question I'm getting at is this: what is the decisive factor here, avoiding personal suffering or saving lives?

What's also interesting about this moral dilemma is that if you take principle and utilitarian ethics (in their classic forms), you could argue that they point to the same outcome: save your friends and family. Not only does it yield a higher net utility, but also, saving yourself would effectively entail killing the others, which is contrary to Kant's categorical imperative. That's just my interpretation - does anyone think a Kantian ethicist or utilitarian would approach the dilemma differently?
User avatar
By Ter
#14793160
I am not saying I would and I am not saying I wouldn't but one can get rid of guilt feelings by seeing a shrink. Or being a psychopath.

For the test I would bribe the organisers in order for me and my dear ones to survive.
#14793167
Silviarose wrote:I think there's another way to look at the decision to sacrifice yourself and save your family and friends, that puts a less 'noble' spin on it. Couldn't it just as easily be the case that you press the red for selfish reasons, rather than noble ones? As a few people have already said - and I'm inclined to agree - the guilt of allowing your close friends and family to die would be unbearable. So, arguably it's more accurate to characterise your sacrifice as a selfish act in order to avoid that pain. What do you think?


I think I answered that in my first post:

But if I sacrifice myself, I'd put them into a severe and possibly suicidal depression. Would I really want them to suffer survivor's guilt for the rest of their lives? Wouldn't it be more noble if I took that burden upon myself? After all, they'd suffer for about thirty seconds, but I would suffer for years.


Which means killing them would actually be the unselfish thing to do. ;)

what is the decisive factor here, avoiding personal suffering or saving lives?


You say that as if it was mutually exclusive; what about survivor's guilt? In that case, saving lives would cause suffering, not prevent it. If you follow the Buddha ;) , letting the other cage drop would minimise suffering, as you'd be the only one subjected to it.

What's also interesting about this moral dilemma is that if you take principle and utilitarian ethics (in their classic forms), you could argue that they point to the same outcome: save your friends and family. Not only does it yield a higher net utility,


That is debatable - what if they are all alcoholic bums and I'm the only one with a PhD? Net utility isn't a numbers game.

but also, saving yourself would effectively entail killing the others, which is contrary to Kant's categorical imperative.


I don't think Kant ever forbade self-preservation.

I think the reason that philosophers (and armchair philosophers) are so fond of these dilemma games is that they defy the categorical imperative. Which alternative would you want to make a general rule? And on what grounds? Whichever you'd choose, lots of people would claim that the other one should have priority.
#14794074
Frollein wrote:I think I answered that in my first post:



Which means killing them would actually be the unselfish thing to do. ;)


Frollein wrote:You say that as if it was mutually exclusive; what about survivor's guilt? In that case, saving lives would cause suffering, not prevent it. If you follow the Buddha ;) , letting the other cage drop would minimise suffering, as you'd be the only one subjected to it.


That's really interesting! I hadn't consideered the aspect of survivors guilt/suffering so much. I suppose it would depend on whether which we consider it better to be alive, suffering from guilt, or to be killed. Can morality dictate that?

Frollein wrote:That is debatable - what if they are all alcoholic bums and I'm the only one with a PhD? Net utility isn't a numbers game.


Of course it's not just a numbers game :) I was just working on the assumption that, because they're valuable to you, they're unlikely to have a collectively lower net utility than you. Unless you're a really exceptional person in some useful sense.

Frollein wrote:I don't think Kant ever forbade self-preservation.


Hmm that's true, but could you universally apply the maxim that it's ok to cause the death of multiple people to save your own life?

Frollein wrote:I think the reason that philosophers (and armchair philosophers) are so fond of these dilemma games is that they defy the categorical imperative. Which alternative would you want to make a general rule? And on what grounds? Whichever you'd choose, lots of people would claim that the other one should have priority.


Exactly, that's why they're so fun! :lol:

I would bet you have very strong feelings about DE[…]

@Rugoz A compromise with Putin is impossibl[…]

@KurtFF8 Litwin wages a psyops war here but we […]

[usermention=41202] @late[/usermention] The[…]