Situational Ethics

[mattskramer]

Any moral absolutists out there? Here is a situation with only 2 solutions:

You are a poor worker. Your relatively good young wife has a painful and fatal disease. A chemist invented a chemical cure but he won't give it to you unless you pay him 100 times more than you will ever earn. He won't take loans or negotiate in any form. By stealing the chemical you can easily and quickly end your wife's pain and disease. Do you let her suffer and die young or do you steal the drug?

 

[krisy]

Well,if it were my husband I would do what I had to do and probably take it. The chemist sounds like a jackass anyway.

 

[NewGuy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Any moral absolutists out there?

Define your term.

Here is a situation with only 2 solutions:

You are a poor worker. Your relatively good young wife has a painful and fatal disease. A chemist invented a chemical cure but he won't give it to you unless you pay him 100 times more than you will ever earn. He won't take loans or negotiate in any form. By stealing the chemical you can easily and quickly end your wife's pain and disease. Do you let her suffer and die young or do you steal the drug?

I have some issues with this:

1. I don't believe in the no win scenario.
2. I also don't believe any pharmaceutical or chemical cannot be matched in effectiveness by something else.

Therefore, If my arms were cut off and a gun was pointed between my eyes, and I was totally tied up, and I had 3 seconds to decide.......

Let her die.

 

[Bern80]

I'm guessing your point is that neither option is completely moral. Fine, anybody can come up with a scenario with a difficult choice to make. Do you think you have thereby proven that nothing is morally absolute?

By the way, there are way more then two solutions to that problem, many of which would be considered in your terms to be morally absolute, but that's not really the pt, is it.

I do see most things in black and white when it comes to right and wrong. I have heard many people argue that morals are created and deemed by society. I personally don't agree with that notion, but if that's the case there really isn't any grey in your scenario. Most people would answer that he should just take it and almost no one would fault him for that, meaning society has deemed that action morally just. Again that isn't what I think morality is, but that is, I think, how many would argue it.

The reason I don't think there is as much grey area as some would argue is that I have run across very few, if any scenarios, where one choice is equal to another. There is always a best option or a lesser of two evils, making it the right thing to do and thus the moral thing to do.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by NewGuy
Define your term.



I have some issues with this:

1. I don't believe in the no win scenario.
2. I also don't believe any pharmaceutical or chemical cannot be matched in effectiveness by something else.

Therefore, If my arms were cut off and a gun was pointed between my eyes, and I was totally tied up, and I had 3 seconds to decide.......

Let her die.

Okay. Forget the opening question. The situation is straight forward though unlikely. You have two choices. Steal the chemical or let your wife die. There was no mention of pointing a gun to your head.

I won't say that there are no moral or ethical absolutes. I will say that I think that if there are some absolutes they are very few. --- I recall a guy saying that it is wrong to lie. I then asked him to pretend that he was living in Nazi Germany and that he knew that his good neighbor was leading Jews out of Germany through an underground "railroad". If he were confronted by the German authorities and asked about his neighbor, would he tell the truth? He finally said that under some situations it is okay to lie.

 

[Bern80]

again, unless your just defining the terms of this debate this way, there are more than two choices here. Think about it.

p.s. would like to here other thought of yours on my post.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Bern80
again, unless your just defining the terms of this debate this way, there are more than two choices here. Think about it.

p.s. would like to here other thought of yours on my post.

The terms are quite clear: An absolutist is one who believes in absolutes. For example if an absolutist thought that it is wrong to steal, he would think that it is wrong to steal in any and all situations. Steal - to take something, without permission, that doesn't belong to you. Let die... well... What relevant term do you not understand?

My point is that almost all, if not all, ethics and morality is situational.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
The terms are quite clear: Steal - to take something, without permission, that doesn't belong to you. Let die... well... What relevant term do you not understand?

My point is that almost all, if not all, ethics and morality is situational.

Again, have you thought about any other options or are you, for the sake of argument, saying i must pick one or the other? If the later see the first post. If you have thought about though, think harder.

 

[mattskramer]

Originally posted by Bern80
Again, have you thought about any other options or are you, for the sake of argument, saying i must pick one or the other? If the later see the first post. If you have thought about though, think harder.

It must be getting late. Let us assume that in my situation there is no other option. I have looked through the tread and have not noticed your straight answer to my question. Assuming that there is no other option, would you steal or let your wife die?

Originally posted by Bern80
By the way, there are way more then two solutions to that problem, many of which would be considered in your terms to be morally absolute...

I cannot think of another option. If you can think of one, please share it.

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
It must be getting late. Let us assume that in my situation there is no other option. I have looked through the tread and have not noticed your straight answer to my question. (1.) Assuming that there is no other option, would you steal or let your wife die? (2.) Having asked that, I cannot think of another option. If you can think of one, please share it.

1)If those are my two options, I would steel it. And my decision is NOT morally ambiguois for two reasons: 1) again, not that I would argue it this way, but society would have deemed it justifiable and thus moral. 2) In my terms(see first post, last paragraph for those) stealing it is also the more right answer because life is more valuable than property. It is therefor the most desireable option and the lesser of two evils making it the moral decision to make.

2) The other option, unless it is an unwritten no, no in this case, is to find someone that CAN pay the money. This would be charity of course and it happens all the time in our society in situations similar to the one you have layed out i. e. for people that have medical expenses they simply can't cover.

 

[mattskramer]

(1.) Okay. Interesting perspective. For you it is not morally ambiguous because "life is more valuable than property". Taking that position a step further, suppose that you were a foolish and opportunistic bum. You don't even earn enough money to provide your wife with food. It is therefore morally okay to live a life of crime...stealing from others in order to supply yourself and your wife with basic needs?

Did you know that some people think that it is wrong to steal no matter what the situation? My opinion: I'd do what I can with what I have but if it came down to life and death issues, I'd steal.

(2.) Charity. A great option that I neglected to consider. Your point is well taken. Good night.

 

[YellowBirdy]

Originally posted by mattskramer
Any moral absolutists out there? Here is a situation with only 2 solutions:

You are a poor worker. Your relatively good young wife has a painful and fatal disease. A chemist invented a chemical cure but he won't give it to you unless you pay him 100 times more than you will ever earn. He won't take loans or negotiate in any form. By stealing the chemical you can easily and quickly end your wife's pain and disease. Do you let her suffer and die young or do you steal the drug?

I Kant give you an answer.

 

[NewGuy]

Kramer, you have boxed yourself in.

You will always win.

-Here is why:

You are trying to show how there is always a gray area by further being able to take relational ethics to its absolute: IE- You can always justify anything by comparison to someone or something worse.

In that case, you intend to defend homosexuality and/or getting Christians to back off as having just another equally valid opinion.

Now....here is where you will always lose:

1. Christians have Biblical prophecy on their side which cannot be disprovem. If you want to get stupid with math, we could say you cannot prove a negative. -But we do not have to.

2. Relational ethics can be superceded. Your game plan concludes no outsidfe rules made by a referee or game master. As such, you cannot fathom an independent rule set to which all must adhere to as a universal justice.

Relational ethics is ONLY possible where there are individuals of equal value all of their own value set.

This is equal to a bunch of blindfolded people in a dark room with hands outstretched looking for a chair. All are equal and bumping into each other, but nobody can be right over another and nobody can make a sense of direction or focus to better anything.

When outside rules determine the situation, degrees of right and wrong are introduced. -Which, coincidentally, you want to claim full mastery of BECAUSE you do not believe in an outside rule maker. However, when this set of rules is introduced, justice becomes possible, and absolutes are determined.

Add the fact that Christ is provable by prophecy, and you have your rule maker defined.

Now everyone in that room can see the chair and move toward the common goal. Since this logic IS logic, and provable, but you will want to prove your FEELINGS as being right instead of making your LOGIC right, you will attempt to now disprove my logic without any.

-And by the way, your logic has just been swallowed up. (kind of like the annoying "darwin" fish on the back of cars does to the "Christian fish" symbol)

 

[Bern80]

Originally posted by mattskramer
(1.) Okay. Interesting perspective. For you it is not morally ambiguous because "life is more valuable than property". Taking that position a step further, suppose that you were a foolish and opportunistic bum. You don't even earn enough money to provide your wife with food. It is therefore morally okay to live a life of crime...stealing from others in order to supply yourself and your wife with basic needs?

I would not fault the bum IF, and this is a big if, if he is doing everything he can to make sure he doesn't have to support himself that way forever.

Did you know that some people think that it is wrong to steal no matter what the situation? My opinion: I'd do what I can with what I have but if it came down to life and death issues, I'd steal.

I woudl say it doesn't matter what people "think" You and I have both shown that it is simply not the case. I think you are saying that the for the moral absolutist stealing is wrong no matter what. As somewhat of a moral absolutist i would say that that is not really the black and white perspective I'm coming from. All decisions need to be based in there own context at that time. The black and white is that there is one best answer, the white one, (uggh, that was bad). The rest is black to me.

 

[Hobbit]

I have a moral absolute, and that is "Love your neighbor as yourself," and here are the answers to the so-called "grey areas." (sure, absolutism is incorrect with the wrong absolutes)

Steal the chemical or let the wife die: Both are your neighbors. Both deserve love and respect. Steal the chemical to save your wife, showing a love and caring of your wife, who is, in context of the scripture, your neighbor. Don't steal all of the chemical, for it is the scientist's lifeblood. It will put food on his table, and only taking enough to save your wife will show that you respect that, as well as ensuring that it is not the only sample of a live-saving drug. Confess taking the chemical and accept responsibility for your actions, showing respect for the scientist's rights as a citizen and your adherance to the law. You did something against the law, and that comes with a cost, which you must pay. This shows love and respect for all those that would be your neighbors, leaving the moral absolute.

Tell the Nazis or don't: You love the Nazis as yourself, so lying to them is a bad thing. However, you also love the neighbors and the Jews they are hiding as yourself. You would much rather be lied to than killed, so you lie to the Nazis. In a way, you are also saving them from being guilty later.

Warzone: Sure, you don't want to be shot in the head, but if you don't shoot this guy in the head, many more will die. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. This shows love to the most possible people.

 

[kingjames04]

Having to choose the lesser of two evils is not equivalent with claiming the lesser evil is actually good.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Originally posted by mattskramer
The terms are quite clear: An absolutist is one who believes in absolutes. For example if an absolutist thought that it is wrong to steal, he would think that it is wrong to steal in any and all situations. Steal - to take something, without permission, that doesn't belong to you. Let die... well... What relevant term do you not understand?

My point is that almost all, if not all, ethics and morality is situational.

Situational, but not relative. Moral absolutism is the result of a belief in an absolute and supreme moral authority, i.e. a supreme being. The morality that results is one which does not take the consequences to this human life, in this world into account. The moral payoff lies in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife. Within this context, so long as one acts in the name of one's favorite deity, any attrocity can be condoned.

When we look at our morals and values in terms of their consequences to this life...in this world, we rapidly see what is useful and beneficial, and what is useless and harmful. That which leads to the harm of oneself, others or both is useless and harmful...It is, therefore, to be discarded. With human life as the yardstick by which the consequences of our morals and values are measured, we arrive at a truly human, and humane, morality.

 

[jimnyc]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
It is, therefore, to be discarded.

That's the disclaimer that should be beneath every post Bully makes.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Situational, but not relative. Moral absolutism is the result of a belief in an absolute and supreme moral authority, i.e. a supreme being. The morality that results is one which does not take the consequences to this human life, in this world into account. The moral payoff lies in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife. Within this context, so long as one acts in the name of one's favorite deity, any attrocity can be condoned.

When we look at our morals and values in terms of their consequences to this life...in this world, we rapidly see what is useful and beneficial, and what is useless and harmful. That which leads to the harm of oneself, others or both is useless and harmful...It is, therefore, to be discarded. With human life as the yardstick by which the consequences of our morals and values are measured, we arrive at a truly human, and humane, morality.

Socialism has consistently failed in providing either freedom or prosperity. I don't know if you value either of those. Your yardstick of human life judges leftism poorly.

America is the most free and most prosperous nation and has enabled an era of world trade that has enriched every nation. Our way is better, by any verifiable measure.

 

[Hobbit]

Originally posted by Bullypulpit
Situational, but not relative. Moral absolutism is the result of a belief in an absolute and supreme moral authority, i.e. a supreme being. The morality that results is one which does not take the consequences to this human life, in this world into account. The moral payoff lies in some mythical, metaphysical afterlife. Within this context, so long as one acts in the name of one's favorite deity, any attrocity can be condoned.

When we look at our morals and values in terms of their consequences to this life...in this world, we rapidly see what is useful and beneficial, and what is useless and harmful. That which leads to the harm of oneself, others or both is useless and harmful...It is, therefore, to be discarded. With human life as the yardstick by which the consequences of our morals and values are measured, we arrive at a truly human, and humane, morality.

Human lives in Iraq are now longer and more enjoyable. Fewer innocent people have died than if Saddam had remained in power. Measuring by your new yardstick, the war, which you post some leftism about nearly every day, is moral.