Ethical Question: Philosophy Forums

Philosophy Forums » Ethics » Ethical Question » Ethical Question

Ethical Question
Ie. An Obvious Attempted Trap

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Ethical Question

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 07/29/09 - 06:30 PM: Subject: Ethical Question	#1
Let's say that, by some bizarre twist of fate, you could go down to the local cinema; watch a scary movie; then after a few hours later go back home slightly tired and go on with your life. By doing so, you know you would save someone who would have otherwise have died. Is it morally acceptable NOT to go and watch the scary movie?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

The Fork
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 24, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 12

Posted 07/30/09 - 01:40 AM:	#2
In order for it to be morally unacceptable it would have to be demonstrated that you have a moral obligation to save that person.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 07/30/09 - 10:12 AM:	#3
And which movie did you accept a role such that you get a commission of sales?
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Cadrache
Tenured Poster

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Dec 09, 2006
Location: AB, Canada

Total Topics: 104
Total Posts: 2644

Posted 07/30/09 - 02:09 PM:	#4
Well, anyways I mulled it over a bit more. No ale contributed to this answer. Either is ethically sound.
"...There was a writer who asked why it was that when we find positive experiences we say that only the physical facts are real, but in negative experiences we believe that reality is subjective. He made an example of those who say that in birth only the pain is real, the joy a subjective point of view, but that in death it is the emotional loss that is the reality." - Tony Ballantyne, Recursion. _____________________________________________ Truth is want. - The internal state of matters. Truth is Need. - The external state of affairs.

Octopus
Aspirant

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jul 19, 2009

Total Topics: 2
Total Posts: 32

Posted 08/01/09 - 04:21 PM:	#5
What would be the difference between not going to see the film and not donating to famine relief? Or not volunteering up your unused kidney? Degree of directness?

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 08/14/09 - 09:35 AM:	#6
Octopus wrote: What would be the difference between not going to see the film and not donating to famine relief? The nature of what one gives: in the one case, one gives up mainly time, whereas in the other case one gives up money. What about saving a child who is drowning in a pond?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

New Mysterianism
banned

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Feb 09, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 22

Posted 08/14/09 - 09:51 AM:	#7
When we think about what morality demands of us, many think that it requires a certain lack of selfishness. For instance, giving a large portion of my winnings away is said to be a supererogatory act. People praise such acts as good, but they don't criticize those who do not perform it. This is because it is generally recognized that acts like the one above involve doing more than one is morally obliged to do. In other words, the act is worthy of special praise, but it is hardly a requirement on moral agents. In the United States, there is a "no duty to aid" clause which excludes you from being legally or morally obligated from doing such things as saving someone who is drowning face-down in a shallow puddle, even if doing so involves no risk or cost to yourself. It remains a serious philosophical possibility, however, that we should give to charitable donations and save people from drowning. Our surprise at people who do just these things does not necessarily show that they acted above the call of moral duty. Perhaps they merely acted in accordance with it. In other words, perhaps it is we (the less than supererogatory agents) who so often fail to fulfill the moral duties that fall upon us. Food for thought, anyway. Edited by New Mysterianism on 08/14/09 - 09:59 AM

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 08/14/09 - 10:05 AM:	#8
I think what is supererogatory and what is not is, to some extent, a matter of degree rather than quality. Giving away a large portion of one's income is supererogatory, if supererogatory is to mean anything at all. One the other hand, is it morally acceptable to be in a position where a tiny sacrifice could make a large difference and yet to value one's own tiny sacrifice above the lives of others? The example I've been skirting around is actually the issue of blood donation. Blood donation is an extremely convenient and painless enterprise in comparison to the difference it makes to the lives of others. If anyone was told that they were going to die young and miss out on most of their lives due to a shortage of blood donors due to a lack of willingness on the part of many to undergo a mild inconvenience, they would be extremely angry. The decision not to donate blood (when one could) seems to be a level of megalomania with regard to one's own ends relative to that of others as to almost unbelievable. Yet it is a common and socially acceptable decision. An extreme example of this sort of megalomania would be someone one the Titanic who loads a private lifeboat with cheap possessions rather than let anyone else on the boat. Such a person would appear to be beneath contempt, but they are following essentially the same principle as someone who doesn't give blood yet could. One could appeal, to explain the difference, to social contracts and universalisable duties, but that seems to be multiple thoughts-too-many.
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

graymath
Initiate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Aug 17, 2009

Total Topics: 0
Total Posts: 4

Posted 08/19/09 - 12:29 AM:	#9
Very good point about the blood donation. Then again, if we take a closer look at society as a whole, we'll find many examples of morally reprehensible acts performed by, I would venture, all of us. Not challenging the status quo of a society that rewards greed, putting our money in ethically unsound banking establishments, reinforcing irrelevant supersition such as religion, nation, and a whole host of other arbitrary cultural phenomena. My point is this, there are probably other, more pressing matters to attend to than people not giving blood.

MarchHare
Graduate

Usergroup: Members
Joined: Jun 23, 2009

Total Topics: 4
Total Posts: 190

Posted 08/19/09 - 03:50 PM:	#10
graymath wrote: Very good point about the blood donation. Then again, if we take a closer look at society as a whole, we'll find many examples of morally reprehensible acts performed by, I would venture, all of us. Not challenging the status quo of a society that rewards greed, putting our money in ethically unsound banking establishments, reinforcing irrelevant supersition such as religion, nation, and a whole host of other arbitrary cultural phenomena. My point is this, there are probably other, more pressing matters to attend to than people not giving blood. I think the notable difference between the examples you give and blood donation is that, while all of those examples are considered wrong as a result of ethical opinions that are by no means universal in society, giving blood seems to be to be the rational consequence of ANY typical moral system and I've never met anyone who says that donating blood isn't praiseworthy. You don't have to be an anti-capitalist, a liberal etc. to want to give blood, but simply to play a value- ANY value- on the lives of others. The vast majority of people claim to do this and I believe them, but then why are there so few blood donors?
Doubt requires a reason to doubt. Nothing is immune from potential doubt. The correct response to a question isn't always to try to give the question's answer.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5

Sorry, you don't have permission to post. Log in, or register if you haven't yet.