NESSAholics.com
Other Topics => Completely Off-Topic => Topic started by: Katia's Lover on October 27, 2003, 03:34:33 pm
-
Help me with my philosophy paper!
PLEASE, only serious answers should apply.
Imagine the following scenario. A psychopath takes you and ten other persons hostage. His delusional psychosis causes him to give you the choice between exactly two alternatives.
A) You agree to choose and kill five hostages yourself, in exchange for which he releases you and the remaining five.
B) The psychopath kills all ten hostages and releases you.
Which alternative, if either, is morally correct? Does one have more moral value than the other? Why? If you select "A", how would you decide whom is to die? Why? If you select "B", how would you explain this choice to the hostages (most of whom would undoubtedly beg for the first alternative to be selected)?
It IS an appropriate answer to say you would make no choice at all, if you take into account that the psychopath will kill you if you refuse to do so. Then you must ask "Is refusing to make a choice still making a choice?"
I would appreciate it if I could get simply serious responses without replies--to make it easier for me to sift through for answers instead of having 2 answers among 20 replies. But then again, I realize I'm hoping for something I know will never happen.
Thanks
Todd
-
This reminds me of the Freshman Seminar I took in Philosophy and all that stuff about Kant and the greater good and etc.
... unfortunately that was four years ago and I hardly remember anything about Philosophy. :?.
However, from a moral standpoint it all depends on what Philosophical view you take it from. Some Philosophers would say that you should choose A because saving the lives of five people would benefit the greater good, as to where some Philosophers would say that morally killing anyone for any reason is wrong.
And according to some Philosophers, yes, not making a choice at all is making a choice.
If YOU are forced to choose, which Philosopher do you side with most? I think that could be a starting point and you could ride the line on his views of morality and play it that way. At least in that sense you may not be "wrong" because a Philosopher did see things in that way. (Even if you do not totally agree with his views)
I know this may not be of too much help, but it is food for thought if nothing else.
-
I would choose to not choose, so that I may die if the rest are set free because I believe I should have no choice over weither someones life is taken but my own. I know this is the high and mighty choice but choosing life or death for someone else is a job I don't feel worthy enough. Also guilt would take over me the feeling if only I did another choice then the person would have had a happy life and made other peoples life just as happy would be unbearable.
-
tough question...
but all i know is that i could never kill anyone!
-
In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.
Otherwise. I would choose A, because I believe God will more easily forgive mortal sins if you had no other choice, and you wanted to save 5 people's lives. More people die in Answer B. Less in A, and God will forgive you of your sins.
-
i would choose A but instead of choosing 5 to kill..i would kill the psychopath...unfortunately if the psyhopath has a weapon to offer me to harm the others...it would be really dumb to give it to me when i 'd have advantage of everything....and having advantage of everything esp in a situtation like this...i would rather see the psychopath die then 5 other innocent people..lol
I mean, even if i killed five people..the psychopath would still have something to laugh about..and honestly..do you think i would personally get away with his dirty work?
if i do that..i be better off killing myself...
i would def not choose B..because that would be selfish and i dont think i would be able to live with that
i may be way off with this :? but i tryed
-
In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.
i was thinking this.
-
In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.
i was thinking this.
I realize I am breaking the no replying rule here, however, considering that this is a Philosophy Paper, the option of the psychopath giving you a gun is not likely, it is not even mentioned what the weapon would be to kill someone, so that is also something to take into account.
One thing I do remember from my Philosophy class, there are so many answers and there really isn't a true "right" answer, it is just to which side do you lean and which theory and theorists do you agree with most.
-
In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.
i was thinking this.
I realize I am breaking the no replying rule here, however, considering that this is a Philosophy Paper, the option of the psychopath giving you a gun is not likely, it is not even mentioned what the weapon would be to kill someone, so that is also something to take into account.
One thing I do remember from my Philosophy class, there are so many answers and there really isn't a true "right" answer, it is just to which side do you lean and which theory and theorists do you agree with most.
Well it also doesn't say he wouldn't give you a gun...and if there would be more then 2 weapons... This class would drive me nuts...
-
The no reply rule has went to hell... much as I expected. :wink:
Joey, I know you have good intentions, but the question here means absolutely JACK SHIT. The psychopath means JACK SHIT.
The question here is not about hostages, and not about psychpaths.
Instead, it's about rather the morality of an issue is in a "Greater Happiness" for society as in 'A' as John Stewart Mill believes, or rather it is the actual action. If the action has to be moral for the deed to be indeed moral, than 'B' would be a more moral response since the action in 'A' would be killing five people.
It's like the story of a burning house. Inside one window is a piece of paper with the cure for cancer. Inside the other window is a baby. You only have time to save one. Which do you save? I get the answer "find a water hose and save the house." That's not the issue at hand, the issue at hand is what is more moral: Saving a baby directly but letting people die from cancer indirectly, or saving millions of people directly and killing a baby indirectly.
-
i would get the cure for cancer, unless it was my baby.
but that is besides the point A would be more moral...letting 6 people live would, to me, be better then letting one live.
-
Instead, it's about rather the morality of an issue is in a "Greater Happiness" for society as in 'A' as John Stewart Mill believes, or rather it is the actual action. If the action has to be moral for the deed to be indeed moral, than 'B' would be a more moral response since the action in 'A' would be killing five people.
Essentially it comes down to which theorist you believe has a more valid viewpoint. I think the Mill side would be easier to argue, but that is just how I would do it if I had to write the paper.
-
This IS a serious answer... so yeah, I'm not kidding, this is what I would do.
I would chose the first option. The reason is because obviously I'd have to be given some way or weapon in which to end the life of another, otherwise I wouldn't be able to kill ANYbody, being female and not exactly full of strength.
This would therefore cause the psycho to also BECOME a hostage to me, in which he would be the first one I'd choose to kill. Then I would change my mind once he'ss dead that I would kill no one else.
The courts would therefore consider my case one of self-defense despite taking the life of another.
*shrug*
I dunno. Your making my brain bulge, its not very used to this. ;)
Interesting situation though.
-
In all seriousness, I would say I would choose option A. Take the gun, shoot the psychopath, then noone but the psychopath dies.
well yeah, after I made my post, I realize I was a repeat....
:roll:
-
And as far as the cancer thing, I got to go with Joey here. I'd choose the paper with the cure for cancer on it, except if it was MY baby.
However, I'd definately be TORN if my Grandmother was still alive because she HAD cancer (and inevitably died from it)... But then the issue would arise about who deserves life, one who has experienced it or one who was just starting off with one?
It kinda reminds me of the other "morals" situation:
Your son is stuck on the train tracks. Farther down the tracks, the bridge is out. You only have enough time for one: Give the train enough time to stop before it goes over the edge (therefore saving the lives of hundreds of passengers) or getting your child out of harms way.
Which would you choose? The life of your son or the lives of hundreds??
Either way YOU lose.
Life a ........... yeah. Then ya die. We all do. Isn't that what this is sorta all about? Besides morals?? People die.
I tell ya this: Solve the issue of man's death, and no one will ever need to take a Philosphy class again!
-
Is this a viable answer?
Kill the psychopath at all costs, even if everyone dies. Have everyone gang up on him if possible. Anyone who dies is by chance and not by choice. With this option you are taking a chance and the odds can swing either way depending on the situation. If anyone refuses tell them if they don't co-operate then you will choose choice B.
tylor
-
Help me with my philosophy paper!
PLEASE, only serious answers should apply.
Imagine the following scenario. A psychopath takes you and ten other persons hostage. His delusional psychosis causes him to give you the choice between exactly two alternatives.
A) You agree to choose and kill five hostages yourself, in exchange for which he releases you and the remaining five.
B) The psychopath kills all ten hostages and releases you.
Which alternative, if either, is morally correct? Does one have more moral value than the other? Why? If you select "A", how would you decide whom is to die? Why? If you select "B", how would you explain this choice to the hostages (most of whom would undoubtedly beg for the first alternative to be selected)?
It IS an appropriate answer to say you would make no choice at all, if you take into account that the psychopath will kill you if you refuse to do so. Then you must ask "Is refusing to make a choice still making a choice?"
I would appreciate it if I could get simply serious responses without replies--to make it easier for me to sift through for answers instead of having 2 answers among 20 replies. But then again, I realize I'm hoping for something I know will never happen.
Thanks
Todd
1) Kant is an idiot
2) From my perspective, being a moral individual i would never harm (kill) someone no matter what the choice.
3) I would never *not* choose because inaction is the worst of all
4) I don't believe there is no other way out of this situation... i would sooner kill myself trying to save everyone
5) To answer your question, the moral solution is B. Why should *I* sacrifice my morals not to kill for some psychopath? It makes me no better than he is.
6) The baby/cancer thing is an entirely diff subject. It's safe to assume if someone figured out the cure once, it can be figured out again... so why risk a babies life to get the cure for cancer?
-katia
p.s. it's philosophical, not philosophocal
-
Evil admin...
-
Evil admin...
Why don't people understand this? Is it so difficult?!?
You are not supposed to think logically people! This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered". Yes, katia... we know that. But let's assume it couldn't be. Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die. Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil. The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.
These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good. Stop thinking about it logically! These are philosphical questions not logic tests!
My answer is A. I firmly believe in the concept of the greater good at all cost. However, in this case the greater good is easily measured..... total life lost and saved. But most decisions in life aren't that clear cut. What is the greater good is often hard to measure or predict.
As for choosing which people to save, i would choose those who make the greatest contributions to society. Like it or not, children would die first (unless he or she showed some outstanding aptitude) then unskilled workers, then skilled laborers, then people who contribute ideas, then the leader types. In that order.
Discuss ;)
-
A) You agree to choose and kill five hostages yourself, in exchange for which he releases you and the remaining five.
B) The psychopath kills all ten hostages and releases you.
Because the future is known (i.e. the only possibilities are 5 dead or 9 dead and no other possible outcomes) I'd go for A. Seeing as we can quantify the cost of both A & B I choose A because the cost is less (4 lives less).
As for who I'd choose. I'd probably choose people who had the least amount of other people to miss them (if I could know this) this should result in the minimum impact.
As for whether one is more morally correct than the other. I'd say no. In both cases the resulting deaths are not directly your fault or will. If for some reason I couldn't kill 5 people to save 4 and opted for B, it's weak and the wrong decision to make but not immoral IMHO.
-Kev
-
As for choosing which people to save, i would choose those who make the greatest contributions to society. Like it or not, children would die first (unless he or she showed some outstanding aptitude) then unskilled workers, then skilled laborers, then people who contribute ideas, then the leader types. In that order.
This may or may not be relevant but... Why not put unskilled workers before children? The least a child could amount to is an unskilled worker. Why not keep the chance of getting a ideas person or leader type out of them?
-Kev
-
Why don't people understand this? Is it so difficult?!?
You are not supposed to think logically people! This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered". Yes, katia... we know that. But let's assume it couldn't be. Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die. Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil. The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.
These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good. Stop thinking about it logically! These are philosphical questions not logic tests!
That's what I'm screamin'.
-
Why don't people understand this? Is it so difficult?!?
You are not supposed to think logically people! This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered". Yes, katia... we know that. But let's assume it couldn't be. Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die. Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil. The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.
These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good. Stop thinking about it logically! These are philosphical questions not logic tests!
That's what I'm screamin'.
Well you could always do your own homework :-PPP
-
This is also why i despise class taught philosophy.
Andrew, If the cure for cancer could not be rediscovered, i would choose the cure for cancer 100% of the time over saving a child, even my child. Same goes for curing AIDS.
-katia
p.s. the philosophers that THROW OUT logic in their conclusions are the true evil people... the goal at all cost should be to stay as connected to reality as possible.
-
Why don't people understand this? Is it so difficult?!?
You are not supposed to think logically people! This is not about "logically the cure for cancer could be rediscovered". Yes, katia... we know that. But let's assume it couldn't be. Let's assume the terrorist/hostage taker is IMMORTAL and can't die. Let's assume its some immortal all knowing evil being.... it's the devil. The devil says either you kill 5 or he kills them all.
These are just media for judging a persons sense of greater good. Stop thinking about it logically! These are philosphical questions not logic tests!
That's what I'm screamin'.
Well you could always do your own homework :-PPP
The paper asked to cite at least five different people and their answers.
-
p.s. the philosophers that THROW OUT logic in their conclusions are the true evil people... the goal at all cost should be to stay as connected to reality as possible.
Hypothetical's are fun. They tell you a lot about a person. Sometimes leaving reality behind is the best way to find out about yourself.....
-
Its Utilitarianism vs Legalists. Or Situationalists (woot woot!) vs Legalists. Either way i'd choose A. Surely, it would the right thing to save more people (even if it does involve also making a 'selfish' choice of saving yourself)? I find it very very hard to accept the hard and fast 'killing is wrong' rule.
In your philosophy classes do you have to argue your own perspective? We aren't allowed too, we are only allowed to say what the philosophers have said and in turn criticise their arguments (the BEST part). And the question you raised would be termed as Ethics over here.
Hmmm, good luck with it.
-
deep....i would go with A...save more lives, though not totally moral.
-
Its Utilitarianism vs Legalists. Or Situationalists (woot woot!) vs Legalists.
8O
-
The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong. Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose. Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand. That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.
In this case neither one is moral. And they are equally immoral. You might as well flip a coin. And use dice to pick the people who would be killed in one case. And if you think that is immoral, You're right! But both answers are immoral. And equally so, so to make a decision in any manner is immoral anyway.
Whenever morality is unreasonable or illogical people will be pick immorality. But in this case you are posing something that is immoral, illogical, and unreasonable. And in this case if it takes the use of a psychopath to pose the hyphothetical question, it just shows how unreasonable, illogical, and immoral the question is because a psychopath is just that. For anyone to pose the question they would have to be out of their mind, and an idiot. Because your pining people up to a psychopathic question that establishes nothing except stupidity, including the author's.
tylor
-
The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong. Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose. Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand. That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.
I'd say it's more to do with that fact that nothing is defined. For example, in this case, what is meant by "morally correct" or "moral value"? If we get differing arguments it's not because they're both correct or incorrect but rather because they're both arguing from different definitions of morality. If morality was defined, there could never be any equally strong contradicting arguments. It's left wide open on purpose, that's the idea of philosophy. This kind of thing can't answer any questions, all it can do is ask more questions. Which has it's uses :)
-Kev
-
The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong. Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose. Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand. That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.
That's only when you study inductive arguments in a course such as "Intro to Philosophy".
Once you get into the second branch of Philosophy such as "Critical Thinking" or into Logic courses, you get into Deductive reasoning, which is WAAAAAAAAAAY cool.
Deductive reasoning and Logic rules!!!
I'm a dork...
-
I'm a dork...
Here, here ;)
-
The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong. Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose. Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand. That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.
This whole paragraph depends on if you believe Plato or Socrates. If you believe Plato, then there IS a correct answer to every philisophical question... we just don't know what it is....
-
The reason why there are no right answers in Philosophy is because almost all of it is wrong. Whenever you have equally strong arguments that cancel each other out because they are equal and opposite, both are wrong because of the contradiction they purpose. Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand. That is the only thing it establishes, stupidy.
This whole paragraph depends on if you believe Plato or Socrates. If you believe Plato, then there IS a correct answer to every philisophical question... we just don't know what it is....
Whenever you have this as the case, it just shows how much we don't understand..
then there IS a correct answer to every philisophical question... we just don't know what it is....
Btw, I don't agree with either Plato OR Socrates.
EDIT: There is a such thing as an invalid question. A question which is not sound. There are tons of them in philosophy. I believe kev222 is correct in saying that it stimulates more questions but it doesn't make the question legatamite. Some questions will never be answered directly because of this. We might have a better understanding which pertains to the nature of the question but once we know more we will know more why the question is flawed. And it is partly because of these questions that we don't know more because we are going in the wrong direction.
tylor
-
EDIT: There is a such thing as an invalid question. A question which is not sound. There are tons of them in philosophy.
I think you're confused.
An "invalid argument" is a deduction that has a problem with it's structure. Commonly the fallacies of the undistributed minor/major premise, or undistributed middle term.
An "unsound argument" is a deduction which is either a) invalid or b) has at least one premise which is false.
-
EDIT: There is a such thing as an invalid question. A question which is not sound. There are tons of them in philosophy.
I think you're confused.
An "invalid argument" is a deduction that has a problem with it's structure. Commonly the fallacies of the undistributed minor/major premise, or undistributed middle term.
An "unsound argument" is a deduction which is either a) invalid or b) has at least one premise which is false.
This boy knows his stuff! We have no choice but to listen... :cry:
-
EDIT: There is a such thing as an invalid question. A question which is not sound. There are tons of them in philosophy.
I think you're confused.
An "invalid argument" is a deduction that has a problem with it's structure. Commonly the fallacies of the undistributed minor/major premise, or undistributed middle term.
An "unsound argument" is a deduction which is either a) invalid or b) has at least one premise which is false.
Actaully, believe it or not I'm not confused. I said question and not argument. The question is invalid, for one, because it has no valid answer. You could say it has three valid answers(or arguments) but because all answers are equally immoral all answers are wrong. Because all answers are wrong the question is invalid.
tylor
-
EDIT: There is a such thing as an invalid question. A question which is not sound. There are tons of them in philosophy.
I think you're confused.
An "invalid argument" is a deduction that has a problem with it's structure. Commonly the fallacies of the undistributed minor/major premise, or undistributed middle term.
An "unsound argument" is a deduction which is either a) invalid or b) has at least one premise which is false.
Actaully, believe it or not I'm not confused. I said question and not argument. The question is invalid, for one, because it has no valid answer. You could say it has three valid answers(or arguments) but because all answers are equally immoral all answers are wrong. Because all answers are wrong the question is invalid.
tylor
Just because a question doesn't have a valid answer, does that make it an invalid question? I'm not sure. You could say there is an answer that hasn't been presented, and in your opinion all answers are equally immoral- but that doesn't mean thats correct. Maybe i'm wrong, i just know there's a flaw in the statement you just made!
-
Actaully, believe it or not I'm not confused. I said question and not argument. The question is invalid, for one, because it has no valid answer. You could say it has three valid answers(or arguments) but because all answers are equally immoral all answers are wrong. Because all answers are wrong the question is invalid.
tylor
Actually, no. There is no such thing as an "invalid question". There is such thing as a question you can't answer due to lack of info. There are trick questions that have no answer. But I wouldn't call any of these "invalid".
Just because a question has three valid answers doesn't make the question invalid. That makes the question debateable. Which is what any question about an opinion is going to be.
Even if each opinion is equally valid (which depdning on your POV they aren't neccesarily) the question is still a valid question because it tells you a lot about the person answering the question.
In other words, Tylor, you're statement makes no sense. Explain to me exactly how a question that has multiple answers is invalid?