Poll: What is the preferable action, morally speaking?
This poll is closed.
A. Kill one, save many. / Saving more lives is worth making exceptions for.
100.00%
1 100.00%
B. Save one, let many die. / There is no room for exception when it comes to
0%
0 0%
C. There is no morally preferable action. A and B are both equally (in)correct.
0%
0 0%
Total 1 vote(s) 100%
* You voted for this item. [Show Results]

The Weekly Debate
#1
This is the Weekly Debate thread. Here, we debate a particular topic every week. Simple, right?

Starting today, and every following Monday I will try to post a new topic for discussion. Choose a side, defend it, exchange rebuttals, and then decide whether you still agree with your initial views at the end of the week.

Here's an outline of the general format:
1. I (or someone in my stead), will find a topic of debate here and post it here. I will also post a poll listing potential sides that you can choose from (i.e.strongly agree, ..., neutral, ..., strongly disagree, etc).
2. Each participant will clearly state their position and defend it.
3. Participants will respond to each other's positions, attacking points they do not disagree with, while defending their own points.
4. Each week will end with a recount of the poll.

Remember to play nice and be respectful. There will be low tolerance for inappropriate behavior in this thread. Also, be informed before you post. If you do not know much about the current topic, take a few minutes to do some research. Cite any evidence you make claim to by providing a web link to it, if applicable.

This week's topic: Kill One to Save Many

We start off with a broad philosophical and moral question: is it right to kill to save others? It is generally true that people want to avoid killing and dying, but when you can only have one or the other, a serious moral dilemma is formed. Hypothetically, would you go back in time to kill Hitler if it was the only way to save two thirds of Europe's Jewish population, or would you refuse simply because murder is murder?

This topic brings up the question of consistency in moral policy. Should we as humans abide by strict rules engraved in stone ("Thou shall not kill") with no exception, or should we consider the consequences of following rules for each given situation? Is it okay to make exceptions to such moral principles?

Quesetion: What is the preferable action, morally speaking?
Sides:
A. Kill one, save many. / Saving more lives is worth making exceptions for.
B. Save one, let many die. / There is no room for exception when it comes to moral values.
C. There is no morally preferable action. A and B are both equally (in)correct.

Remember that this is a ridiculously broad question. Neither A nor B is a perfect decision, but the question at hand is which one is better, not which one is good. Choosing option C implies that you'd flip a coin and arbitrarily chose A or B. If you pick it, you should explain why you feel that the pros and cons of each option balance themselves out in such a way that neither has a significant moral advantage of the other.

Go!
~ Taav
Taavministrator // Senior Bracer
[Image: GziDAAU.png]
[Image: YfzdtMe.png]
Avatar/Signature theme: Estelle Bright of the Trails in the Sky series.

Reply
#2
I believe this question is very situational. Doesn't it depend too much on the events that lead to the decision to be able to make a logically sound choice based on morals?
? // ?[url=http://weeb.space][/url]
Reply
#3
(10-28-2014, 02:35 PM)Dazel Wrote: I believe this question is very situational. Doesn't it depend too much on the events that lead to the decision to be able to make a logically sound choice based on morals?

Try to abstract the question as much as possible. You have the power to save a group of people while killing an individual, or to let the group die in favor of the one person. That's all you know about this situation. You can assume you don't know any of the people in danger, and that they are all equally good people, but that's not entirely necessary to answer the question.

In practicality, you're right. If this were to happen to someone, there would be far too many complications to consider when making a decision. But this question is asking for a philosophical stance, not a practical stance.

The first option requires you to actively do something that will ultimately kill the individual while saving the group. The second option requires you to make no decision, and let the group die. It's debatable which option is better, so think of it this way: general morals say we should never kill, but we should try to save people when we can. But in this scenario, there's no option to do both. Which moral principle is more important?

(We'll have a more down to earth topic next week.)


EDIT (12/28/14): So... This was another flop. If anyone wants to bump this, or suggest a new topic, by all means do so.
~ Taav
Taavministrator // Senior Bracer
[Image: KHz5Qeq.png]
[Image: YfzdtMe.png]
Avatar/Signature theme: Estelle Bright of the Trails in the Sky series.

Reply


Forum Jump: