I keep going over moral dilemmas in my head.

Yeah. It's always been something I've done, and this site hasn't helped. I really have too much time on my hands...

It's been getting worse lately. I've been struggling to make my mind up on a lot of concepts, and my opinions keep changing. I believe most conflicts involve Grey-and-Gray Morality, and things aren't always as black and white as they seem, but this still bugs me.

I've been thinking of The Sadistic Choice, mostly... about those situations where there is no right answer. Okay. Imagine the classic scenario where the bad guy is hanging off the top of a building. Here are the hero's options.

1) Save the Villain. Which means the villain will keep committing evil deeds, and the hero will be indirectly responsible for them.

2) Let him die, and risk becoming just like him.

3) Save him, then have him thrown in prison so he can't hurt anyone. Which is Cruel Mercy.

The scary thing is, all of these options are examples of I Did What I Had to Do. Which I guess is the point of a Sadistic Choice.

Talking of I Did What I Had to Do, that page intrigued me. Especially the morality test in the Real Life section. Quoted from the page:

"There are morality tests that function on the standards of action vs inaction. The first situation proposed is that there is a plane with 100 passengers on that is going to crash, but the test-taker can prevent it by pushing a button. The button will kill 10 people instead. Those who opt to push the button would fall under this trope. The second situation is similar, but now there is also a lever. The lever will also prevent the plane from crashing, and it will only kill person: the test-taker. The answers are interesting, especially to the test-taker."

... Wow. I don't even know any more how many times I've read over it. I mean, ideally, there would be a way to save everyone. But if there isn't, what do you do? Here are my results for the test. First situation: I'd go out of my way to Take a Third Option. If there wasn't one... I don't know. I'd want to minimise the amount of suffering, but still, that would be ten people dead... Second situation: I'd pull the lever. But how "right" would that be? My friends and family would grieve... but if it's either that or 100 people die, and their loved ones grieve...

You can probably tell I think way too much. It's just been really bothering me lately.

What are your thoughts on subjects like this?

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

I use the harm principle; first I weigh up "is there a solution which doesn't harm someone?"

If not, the second question is "out of these bad options, which is the least harmful."

You then take that path. If the there are multiple good options, you take the one which brings the most benefit.

This means, unfortunately, that if the only means to stop a moving tram that is going off a cliff is to shove a fat man in front of it, you push the fat man.

edited 12th Sep '11 4:37:46 PM by GameChainsaw

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

I'm pretty much a strict "ends justify the means" type of person.

In the first, I would press the switch. Not pressing it would be equal to condemning 100 people to death, even though you saved 10. In the second, ideally I'd pull the lever, but it would probably take a while considering it would be my own life. It takes an extraordinary feat of will to want yourself dead. Either way, I believe that the switch and the lever would be the two best options, no matter what.

For the "villian hanging off the edge of a building" type thing, I would choose 3 assuming I could guarentee a guilty verdict and a long, long time in prison. If I thought they could escape their punishment or somehow overcome me if I helped them, I would let them die.

edited 12th Sep '11 4:38:55 PM by YoungMachete

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

Ouch. I guess you're right, but I'm still afraid of falling into well-intentioned extremism or worse.

@Young Machete: I'd personally choose 3 for the "villain hanging off rooftop" scenario, though I wouldn't be able to help wishing things could be more like those idealistic shows where the villain pulls a Heel–Face Turn after being saved.

edited 12th Sep '11 4:42:00 PM by Xandriel

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

Uh... you listed a reasonable third option, which is quite often acted on in real life by cops and the like. How is this a sadistic choice? It's not even really cruel mercy, it's subjecting him to the law and having him punished accordingly.

As for the second scenario; well, I don't think anyone can really know what they'll do in a situation like that until they're actually in a situation like it. It's all well and good to philosophize about it, but putting into action is another thing. Just because we'd like to think we'd sacrifice ourselves, or do the thing that saves the most lives, doesn't mean we don't end up paralyzed by fear or indecision.

edited 12th Sep '11 4:41:42 PM by AceofSpades

Sometimes you have to be ruthless and be prepared to condemn other people, because its the only way to save a greater number of people. You'd just better damn well be right and, speaking for your own personal safety, be able to show you're right.

To use a realistic example, if Bush had gone into Iraq, achieved minimal casualties, and the average life expectancy of Iraqis and the violent death rate had risen sharply and plummeted respectively, he'd have been hailed as a hero who made a difficult but bold decision. As it happens, the death toll soared and now many people see him as a monster; many more simply see him as an idiot who should never have had that sort of power in the first place.

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

Yeah, I guess it's the most reasonable choice and that's why I'd opt for it. The villain would have abused his freedom. It still has a bit of a Cruel Mercy feel, but it really would be the best option, and it would keep innocent people safe.

Thanks for the example. It clears things up a little. I guess sometimes you do have to choose between "wrong" and "even more wrong"... it just shouldn't be like that though. There should be an option where nobody gets hurt, but the world isn't like that. I mean, killing 10 to save 100 would be the "less wrong" choice, but people still die. Letting all 100 die instead, though... If it wasn't through fear and indecision like Ace Of Spades said, then at best that would be Honor Before Reason, at worst it would mean the person who made the decision was a moral coward or so self-centered they didn't care how many people suffered as long as they got to keep their hands clean. Still, the whole thing leaves a sour taste in my mouth.

Can you tell I was once a highly idealistic person, and still am to an extent?

edited 12th Sep '11 5:31:17 PM by Xandriel

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?

Sartre wasn't wrong when he spoke of the agony of moral choice—he simply overstated his case. Other people can help you, but sometimes it may be up to you to make a decision on what to do. That decision may very well be wrong, and you'll have to live with the consequences. But if it ever gets too much for you, remember that you tried, when others might have stood back and let the situation collapse into chaos. And if you did give in to cowardice, let it be a lesson, and the next time you feel too afraid to act, act anyways.

(There's also the fact that most of us will never face a lot of the dilemmas we see on TV . . .)

edited 12th Sep '11 6:12:22 PM by feotakahari

That's Feo . . . He's a disgusting, mysoginistic, paedophilic asshat who moonlights as a shitty writer—Something Awful

I try to go with meta-ethical moral relativism (which basically means consent-based ethics when I apply it to the real world) most of the time. A very strong sense of justice left over from my upbringing sometimes countermands this, however.

I would let the villain die, and I would press the button and pull the lever, ideally. Why would you want 100 people to die instead of 10, and... hopefully... I would be a good enough person to want to save all of those people at my own expense...

Who knows? Hopefully it's a Secret Test of Character...

I am now known as Flyboy.

I think I'd try to pull the lever the moment I heard about the option. This is so I don't get too much time to think about it...

The term "Great Man" is disturbingly interchangeable with "mass murderer" in history books.

These are fairly trivial, to me. In the case of the button killing 10 to save 100, I do nothing. Unless whoever or whatever instructing me to do so has a damn good explanation for why that button has the power to save that plane but needs to kill 10 people to work. "It just does" isn't anywhere near damn or good, by the way. I probably wouldn't pull the lever either. I mean, where's the guarantee that it'll work? "It just does"? Yeah, right... It's not like I can check that, can I: because I'll be dead.

And since it was brought up briefly and they're the more widely known scenarios:

• "The tram hurtling toward the 5 rail-workers, flip the switch and kill 2 others instead"

Do nothing and there'll be a tragic accident, flip the switch and I've killed two men. I do nothing.

• "Throw the fat man off the bridge to save some people about to be crushed by a tram".

Not shoving the fat guy off a bridge.

edited 12th Sep '11 7:05:46 PM by GreatLich

Not pulling that switch knowingly condemns 5 men to their death. The circumstances in my opinion don't matter, what matters is that they died, and you could have done something that would have prevented that.

edited 12th Sep '11 7:09:18 PM by YoungMachete

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

I do accept the argument that you don't know if the button/lever does anything except kill the people, and in that situation (imperfect knowledge) I would be inclined not to act.

In the train lever situation where you can see precisely what will and won't happen? If you do nothing, it's not an accident. That's on your head for failing to act.

Look, you can't make me speak in a logical, coherent, intelligent bananna.

No, (to both of the above comments) because you are then restating that dilemma as "kill 5 or kill 2" instead of "kill 2 to save 5".

I don't understand. To me, that is what the dilemma is. You either kill 2 people, or you kill 5 people. Am I wrong in this perception? If so, how?

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

@7: I don't see the person who refrains from pushing the button (letting the 10 people live) as being any more cowardly, morally, than the person who refrains from pulling the lever (letting 1 person live). The only reason why anyone would even consider inaction to be immoral in these situations, is if we are valuing decisions strictly by the number of people who live/die; on this premise, we cannot let our moral assessment of the decision depend on who the decider is. And surely 100:1 die/live ratio cannot be more acceptable than a 100:10 ratio?

There's a difference between killing 5 people, and allowing 5 people to die. Do you think this difference is morally relevant?

edited 12th Sep '11 9:39:27 PM by Eio

Want some reviews? Send us your stories!

No, you aren't wrong. Why would those 2 people's lives be more important than the 5? And why is that fat man's life more important than everyone's life? Of course, unless I knew that shoving the fat man off the bridge would stop the accident, and that I could get away without being held criminally responsible, I wouldn't do it, but if those two conditions were met, I would. I would also support it (though I wouldn't personally do it unless I could get away without being criminally responsible) if just the first condition were met, though I'd advise inaction unless there would be no negative consequences for yourself.

edited 12th Sep '11 9:40:28 PM by tropetown

With the villain thing, I'd go for number two. It's not as if killing bad people to stop them doing bad things is exactly new to me, after all. The Queen used to pay me to do that.

With the other things...well, a lot of these scenarios seem forced and convoluted. Who put the button there? How does it save the 'plane and/or kill the other people? Can it be circumvented?

In real life making those kinds of decisions is what the Queen pays me to do now. If we only have one aircraft available and there's a fishing boat with 5 men on it sinking in seas too rough for liferafts to survive while a guy on an oil rig hundreds of miles away is at death's door with a stroke and needs to be evacuated immediately, where does the helo go?

Do you kill one or kill five? There's no way around it; your decision will kill somebody. That's just life and no amount of tricky logic or clever argument will change that.

In the end you just have to know that you acted according to what you believed was best at the time and then you just live with it. That's all anyone can do.

edited 12th Sep '11 9:59:27 PM by InverurieJones

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

I don't believe the difference is morally relevant Eio. It might be easier to allow people to die, but if you are fully aware of the consequences of your actions in not pushing that button, you might as well be killing them.

"Delenda est." "Furthermore, Carthage must be destroyed." -Common Roman saying at the end of speeches.

There is no difference. It's just easier to lie to yourself when you take no action, than it is when you do. Taking an action means you are responsible; not taking one lets you delude yourself into thinking you aren't.

If presented with a situation where you could save someone's life, do you say 'no'?

Sort of a Rorshach test?

'All he needs is for somebody to throw handgrenades at him for the rest of his life...'

@OP: Let him die, you won't kill him, gravity will; I don't see what the big deal is.

Years ago, when I first came upon this scenario, I immediately decided that I'd flip the switch and kill those two, thus saving five. But after my moral principles evolved a bit in another direction, I changed my mind. By flipping that switch, you are making a decision on who lives and who dies (numbers are irrelevant), and nobody has the right to decide something like that.

It may be interpreted as cowardly inaction, but the way I see it, I simply have no right to decide, I have NO RIGHT to flip that switch.

Some of us do.

But by not flipping the switch when you could, wouldn't that also be a decision as to who lives and who dies?

What's the point in giving up when you know you'll never stop anyway?