What essentially is Good and Evil?

[Caged Maiden]

I view that all things in this world are interconnected. Our actions can cause effects long after we aren't personally involved. Surely you know those what if stories where one little choice going differently causes a huge domino effect resulting in all sorts of things changing? You can say say what you want about responsibility, but it remains that if that one choice had gone differently tremendous things would change in the world.

I can imagine in the above scenario that the families of the masses killed would not agree if the little girl was saved rather than their loved ones, but then, they didn't have to choose to kill her. Sometimes it's hard to make a choice when there is no good choice to be made. Guilt is a powerful thing.

Think of all the charities that use it. When you see the abused animals on Saturday mornings or the starving children of Africa. Am I to believe that NOT donating my money to their foundation is like neglecting my pet or snatching food out of those kids' hands? They sure try to make me feel like it is. And what if I DO give them money? Is my donation going to stop a single animal from being tossed out on the street or feed a child whose family is so poor they can't even feed themselves?

Guilt and conscience... everyone's is different, and I think the overriding factor governing to what depths we can morally sink. Some people would feel more guilty killing a little girl. They might see the face of their own daughter as they stood there, wanting to pull the trigger to save thousands of people. Other people might easily pull the trigger in hope that they were ultimately doing the right thing in saving many people. But, who's to say the madman doesn't blow up the people, himself and you after she's dead. If you believe in the Christian God will he forgive you of murder? Even those without faith in a god might still worry for the sake of their soul if they willingly pull the trigger on an innocent child.

While it's rational to want to save more lives over one in this case, how about a multitude of other decisions people make every day that are selfish and put innocents in danger? People choose not to vaccinate their children against serious diseases which kill children. Our herd immunity is failing and diseases are coming back that haven't killed in large numbers in a century. Can I blame those people if my baby gets measles and dies? They chose something for themselves but endangered many others with their choice.

My point is that the hypothetical situation is an extreme situation, but people choose every day to ignore the welfare of hundreds or thousands of people, yet we do not call them evil for making their choice (even if it means their own unvaccinated child pays the ultimate price, or my baby who's too young to receive his vaccination).

 

[Queshire]

Ok, maybe using the word prefrence wasn't good, a matter of personal belief then?

I agree that one certainly seems better then the other, but that is a matter of personal belief. It is my personal belief that killing one to save thousands is the better option.

As for at what point you gain the right to harm another.... Well, all else being equal? When the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

 

[Steerpike]

Let's try this. You agree that in most ordinary circumstances, I would have no right to harm her? Can you specify at what point, under what circumstances, in your opinion, that right is acquired?

Yes. I agree with you again. You have no right to harm her; to do so is moral. You have no right to by force deprive the girl of her life as a means to some end. No right whatsoever, and the act is in and of itself an evil act. You can't control what the bomber is doing, but you can control what you do. That's where your own moral determination comes in. If you open up the hypothetical to other actions, then you try anything and everything you can do to stop the bombing, but under no circumstances do you kill the girl to achieve it.

 

[Devor]

So if two people could be saved, I could kill her?

 

[Steerpike]

When the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

That probably opens the door up to as much abuse and human suffering as any stance in human history. It is easily used to excuse the torture of prisoners to extract information from them, to set aside due process and human rights to go after a perceived threat. All you have to do is tell yourself that there is a greater good and anything is excusable.

 

[Steerpike]

So if two people could be saved, I could kill her?

Or, if you could save one 'more valuable' person according to a greater good justification, you'd be OK under Queshire's reasoning.

 

[Steerpike]

My point is that the hypothetical situation is an extreme situation, but people choose every day to ignore the welfare of hundreds or thousands of people, yet we do not call them evil for making their choice (even if it means their own unvaccinated child pays the ultimate price, or my baby who's too young to receive his vaccination).

Yeah...I think the human race is largely selfish and individuals exhibit a callous disregard for the health and well-being of one another. Where that crosses a line into "evil" is hard to pinpoint. The extremes, like in my hypothetical, are easy. You shoot an innocent little girl, you're an evil person. The close cases are always the tough ones.

 

[Queshire]

*shrug* it's not perfect, nothing in this world is, but yes, everything else being equal, no idenity, no other options, no extenuating circumstances, if the choice was simply kill one person to save two or don't kill one person and let two die, then yes, I would kill the one person to save the two.

EDIT: If, because of your choice, you let thousands die, you are evil as well.

 

[Steerpike]

*shrug* it's not perfect, nothing in this world is, but yes, everything else being equal, no idenity, no other options, no extenuating circumstances, if the choice was simply kill one person to save two or don't kill one person and let two die, then yes, I would kill the one person to save the two.

I don't think you would, because when actually confronted with it I doubt most people, including you, could actually take that action. But the fact that you'd want to do it makes you a sick individual. You should probably look into therapy and stay clear of small, defenseless animals.

 

[Caged Maiden]

maybe if it weren't shooting this would be an easier question. How about this. The madman wanted you to rape the little girl... Anyone can easily say they will pull a trigger and impersonally kill someone. How about we make it more personal. You rape the little girl, she lives, and all those other people live... Do you do it?

 

[Queshire]

The point of a hypothetical situation, as has been made abundantly clear in this thread, is to examine a certian situation in a controlled environment. What would happen in an equivilant real life situation doesn't matter. Yes, I agree, in a real life situation I would be paralyzed by fear and inaction and would likely not be able to go through with the act. But if I was forced to choose between one person dying and a thousand people dying, and I couldn't not answer, then I would choose to save the most lives every time.

Once more, attacking me does not invalidate my arguments.

EDIT: I disagree, that is harder choice.... It strikes me as weird how something that somebody lives through is considered worse then flat out killing them, but there you have it. That is a much harder question. I would have to say that I would try to find a third option, but if that's not possible.... I simply don't know......

 

[Steerpike]

I don't think most people could follow through on Anihow's hypothetical even if they thought it was the best option. Even if you somehow reasoned that it was OK to rape the girl under that situation, could any person here actually physically perform the act (I'm tying not to get too crude, but you see what I'm getting at)? I don't think so. You'd have to on some level be aroused, or at least be able to arouse yourself to rape the child. I can't imagine how that is possible.

If another person was in the room with a gun and saw that the second person was going to rape the child (or shoot her) I think the additional person there would be justified in shooting the second person to protect the child. How's that for a twist

 

[Devor]

Here's a hypothetical for you.

I'm a market research consultant (I'm not) looking at sales data for two companies, one is Target and one is Duane Reade, a pharmacy store which in many locations sells alcohol. I find that by cross-referencing the market data, I can pinpoint with 95% accuracy whether someone is a drunk driver and generate a list of addresses and telephone numbers where these people live.

This is not a remotely unlikely scenario. In fact, the 5% discrepancy would overwhelmingly be people who shop for someone else, and the other person is the drunk driver. I could make observations to weed those people out and identify the correct target.

Would I be justified in visiting these people and severing the muscles in their ankle to prevent them from driving, knowing that it would save lives? Why or why not?

 

[Steerpike]

Devor:

No you would not be. Until the person has committed the act, you are dealing with an innocent person. You do not have the right to pre-emptively mete out justice for something they might do.

 

[Caged Maiden]

that was sort of my point with my scenario. That it's easy to say you would pull a trigger. It's impersonal and easy. it'd be much harder to violate someone sexually or even poke her eyes out or break her arms and legs even if it meant everyone would live.

 

[Steerpike]

that was sort of my point with my scenario. That it's easy to say you would pull a trigger. It's impersonal and easy. it'd be much harder to violate someone sexually or even poke her eyes out or break her arms and legs even if it meant everyone would live.

I'm sure there are people who would do those things, but there are a lot of disturbed people on the planet.

 

[Caged Maiden]

I think in the context, shooting someone in the head might be considered merciful. What does a normal person do if they must maim someone? That's not an easy thing to do. I'm pretty callous and enjoy blood, but it takes a special person to enjoy watching suffering and torture.

 

[Caged Maiden]

<- has decided to become a vigilante. "Watch out world, my moral compass is out of whack, but it is now the barometer against which you will all be judged!"

Oh, and I'm not attacking anyone for the record. That would be evil...

 

[Steerpike]

<- has decided to become a vigilante. "Watch out world, my moral compass is out of whack, but it is now the barometer against which you will all be judged!"

Oh, and I'm not attacking anyone for the record. That would be evil...

It is rather a convenient outlook. I decide what is in the greater good, and then I'm free to do anything that comports with my decision on that question! >

 

[Queshire]

Again, a hypothetical is merely a hypothetical, what you would do in real life doesn't matter because in real life there are too many uncontrolled variables.

I agree that you would be justified in stopping a rape, but I'm not sure if killing them to stop a rape would be justified, you should try to stop them non-lethally first.

Now if you knew that thousands would die if that person doesn't rape that other person..... Well, again that's a hard choice. You can only do what your own moral compass tells you to do based off the information you have.

@Devour: No you would not. First, I doubt you would be able to reach anywhere near those percentages. Second, a 95% accuracy in determining whether or not someone is a drunk driver mean would mean that of every 20 people you label as a drunk driver, one isn't, and of every 20 people you label as not a drunk driver 1 is. It seems to me that you're copying this oddly specific scenario from somewhere without fully understanding it. Thirdly not every drunk driver kills somebody, while more likely then driving while not drunk, it's still not assured. Fourthly, slicing someone's tendons does not stop them from driving, while expensive, I'm pretty sure it's possible to modify a car to be controlled solely by hand, and Fifthly, if you do cut someone's tendons, I have to think that they'd get depressed and start drinking more, combined with my fourth point that could very well worsen the problem.