NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:05pm:


Let's keep it in reality Helian. This is not a SAW film. This is about causing death and saving lives.

The doctor does have to tend to the patient's suffering death, which she/he has deemed necessary in order that another with treatment can survive. The doctor does have to do what she/he can to reduce that suffering. The doctor does have to live with the decision. The doctor does have to look the patient in the eye and communicate with empathy.

Quote:


That's why we mistakenly turn a blind eye to the bombing of other nations. A sheer lack of empathy.

Nature dictates that empathy will begin to evolve (within a man) somewhere in their early twenties.
This period is seen by right wingers as a period to "get over" and they will eventually discount their conscience as being unimportant.

If there is anything to be a slave to, there is none better than your own conscience.

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

You don't think so? The idea of bashing someone for no reason wouldn't feel wrong to you?

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 3:49pm:

True. But don't you think the idea of the unearned suffering of someone at the hands of another feels wrong? If you looked out your window and saw someone bashing over an old lady in the street to steal her bag, would you not feel a sense of outrage that arises from a sense of wrongness about the act?

Soren wrote on Sep 3^rd, 2010 at 2:37pm:


I guess morality is not about talking but more about walking.
For example you are talking about all sort of moral thinks and than rape your Koren step daughter. Typical merchant's ethics.

Sappho wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

It was you who would not accept the train scenario because "all 6 would die", then you asked me to empathise with a doctor...

You've danced around the question of how you would imagine you'd feel were you the most immediate agent of death of an innocent (even were it to save 5), because, I'm guessing you, like nearly all of us, would recoil at the thought of killing an innocent. We would instinctively feel it is wrong (without having to intellectualise it), regardless of its utility. Most of us would be more "comfortable" with the decision if we could pull a lever / press a button/ sign a death warrant / withhold treatment... anything but look our victim in the eye and administer death... Perhaps because we know our minds would more easily cloud the sense of natural crushing guilt via a process of intellectualisation when spared the "inconvenience" of the graphic image of our "crime" replaying in full colour in our nightmares.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:42am:


Nice to agree for a change. Pity is part and parcel of the definition of sympathy by the way. It is a shallow emotion that does not require social responsibly to act. It's enough to feel and throw a bit of cash at the object of pity.

Now empathy is a whole different story. It is a sophisticated, thoughtful approach to meaningful outcomes for the object of that empathy. It is the source of real morality and not the superficial if it feels wrong it must be wrong approach. Empathy addresses the 'why' and 'how' of wrongness or goodness for that matter.

NorthOfNorth wrote on Sep 4^th, 2010 at 10:33am:


I remember an episode of Mash... not the whole episode, just a particular part of it that disturbed the Alan Alder character, and disturbed me also, since I was a kid watching. A number of mash characters and Vietnamese are in a bus in a hostile location. They have to be quiet lest they be found and killed. A mothers infant is crying and everyone is desperate to quiet the infant. The Alan Alder character pleas with anger for the baby to be shut up.

In the end, the mother suffocates her baby in order that the bus of people have a better chance of survival. Would I do the same thing? Tragically... yes I would... and for the rest of my days I would be haunted by that act. It would not be enough to know that my actions had saved the lives of all others in the bus. It would not be enough to know that given the same set of circumstances I would do it again. My grief would be inconsolable and quite possibly result in my suicide.

Nonetheless... I would suffocate my infant for the greater good. The greater good is the survival of many. 

Your fat man thought experiment is seriously flawed Helian. I simply will not address it. It lacks reality. It lacks sensibility. It does nothing to link us in with the tragedy entailed to taking the life of another. Hopefully, the Mash thought experiment resolves those issues and identifies the serious conflict that can result in acting morally for the good of the many.

Using rational of humanism and nihilism everything can be moral and justified.


(Don't worry it's in English)