MORAL DILEMMA

Author: bibliobibulimaniac

Posts

Total: 46
Topic's author
#1
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism. 

Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question. 

Here is the situation: 

You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed. 
The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct. 

Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Which situation is ethically WORSE???
#2
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
It certainly matters what the different reasons are, but in general, I think "intent" is what matters most, murder is more wrong than an accidental death, a hate crime is worse than self defense, premeditated is worse than temporary insanity.  That is why intent is so important in determining punishment in our legal system, trying to do the right thing with bad consequences is unfortunate, but not morally wrong, intending to bring about bad consequences is morally wrong. 
#3
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Firstly, not all Semites are Jews and not all Jews are Semites. But that's a technicality.

So, there is no global or universal standard of ethicality. Ethics are a variable concept, chiefly relative to the individual, but also relative to a collective in which the individual must function. Though sub-groups within a greater collective may have an ethical stance contrary to the greater collective. And therein lies a raft of contradictions and social conflicts.

Nonetheless, purely from the point of view of your hypothetical protagonists, the ideological zealot (IZ) is not acting contrary to their ethical standards, whereas the other individual is acting contrary to their own ethical standards for a reason. So, in terms of moral dilemma, IZ has a clear conscience and the other does not.
So, from an onlooker's perspective the other's predicament is worse, though how the onlooker views the overall situation relative to their own ethical standards is a separate dilemma for the onlooker.
#4
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
This thread is aligned with a previous one called moral ambiguity vs intense fanaticism. 

Since not many people understood what I was asking / were able to answer it, I am going to rephrase the question. 

Here is the situation: 

You have two individuals: an antisemitic zealot who is driven by his ideology and lives by it; a morally ambiguous individual who is more clear-headed. 
The zealot believes that killing Jewish people is the only right option, and is ethically correct. The other individuals understands that killing the Jewish is deemed wrong, and understands that it is not ethically correct. 

Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Which situation is ethically WORSE???
The Jews that forced this debate.
#5
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Possible Zealot Reasons?
The Jews are taking over our nation,
There is a global conspiracy against Germany,
We must protect our bloodline,
This medical research will save German lives, the subjects are subhuman,

Possible Ambiguous Reasons?
I don't want the government to shoot me for refusing orders,
I need to be paid to feed my family,
My company is getting rich off this forced labor,
Following orders and oaths is important to me,
I love my country,
It's a job,
I love being in power,
This medical research will save lives,
Even if I am not involved, they are going to die anyway,
Nothing that bad is happening (People ignorant of full scope)

Either option bothers me.

#6
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Possible Zealot Reasons?
The Jews are taking over our nation,
There is a global conspiracy against Germany,
We must protect our bloodline,
This medical research will save German lives, the subjects are subhuman,

Possible Ambiguous Reasons?
I don't want the government to shoot me for refusing orders,
I need to be paid to feed my family,
My company is getting rich off this forced labor,
Following orders and oaths is important to me,
I love my country,
It's a job,
I love being in power,
This medical research will save lives,
Even if I am not involved, they are going to die anyway,
Nothing that bad is happening (People ignorant of full scope)

Either option bothers me.
What bothers you matches with your self description in your profile.

About Me: see Lemming’s profile:
Shallow education. A bit rambly. A bit lacking in coherence at times. Generally meh. I'm usually a rather friendly and polite person I'd say, although I do have lapses on occasion.

Topic's author
#7
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
-->
@Shila
Thank you so very much for being nothing but annoying in every forum I see your name.

If you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation, then why bother to post. 
Topic's author
#8
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
-->
@Sidewalker
Say the zealot killed because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he felt he was 'helping' his country, whereas the other individuals killed because he didn't want to be punished. 

Both of them killed. Is there one that is worse?
#9
Sidewalker
Sidewalker's avatar
Debates: 8
Posts: 2,669
3
2
5
Sidewalker's avatar
Sidewalker
3
2
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Say the zealot killed because he thought it was the right thing to do, and he felt he was 'helping' his country, whereas the other individuals killed because he didn't want to be punished. 

Both of them killed. Is there one that is worse?
Yes, the context, intent, and motivation matters, especially in cases of murder.  That's why the law specifies different degrees and types of murder, with different punishment.  

Do you think a hate crime murder, a mercy killing, a soldier killing in battle, and killing in self defence, are morally all the same?  All of them killed, isn't there one that i worse?
#10
Lemming
Lemming's avatar
Debates: 7
Posts: 3,354
4
4
10
Lemming's avatar
Lemming
4
4
10
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Does it matter if,
Fellow in the South lynched someone because he hated Blacks, and thought he was decreasing their number in his land as good,
or
Fellow in the South lynched someone because everyone else in the mob was doing it?

Seems more likely than not,
That the instigator was hateful, than noncaring,
Shouldn't the leader who led and incited, ordered and planned be 'most responsible?

Not that the go alongs were 'good.
#11
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac

--> @Shila
Thank you so very much for being nothing but annoying in every forum I see your name. 

If you have nothing useful to contribute to this conversation, then why bother to post.
Can you decipher your title. bibliobibulimaniac?
#12
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
To me, there isn't much difference.

The only difference lies in how widespread their ideology can become and the types of people who will buy into it.
Same reply from me.
#13
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@Lemming
--> @bibliobibulimaniac
Does it matter if,
Fellow in the South lynched someone because he hated Blacks, and thought he was decreasing their number in his land as good,
or
Fellow in the South lynched someone because everyone else in the mob was doing it?

Seems more likely than not,
That the instigator was hateful, than noncaring,
Shouldn't the leader who led and incited, ordered and planned be 'most responsible?

Not that the go alongs were 'good.
You are rehashing the confusion the South was going through regarding the proper treatment of blacks. It took a civil war to resolve it.

#14
Athias
Athias's avatar
Debates: 20
Posts: 3,192
3
3
9
Athias's avatar
Athias
3
3
9
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Neither is "worse"; they're both terrible.
Topic's author
#15
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
-->
@Shila
Yes, I can. It is related to the word bibliophilia which is the love of books or reading. Don't see why this is a problem. 
#16
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
-->
@Shila
Yes, I can. It is related to the word bibliophilia which is the love of books or reading. Don't see why this is a problem.
That is not the word you use.

Can you decipher your title. bibliobibulimaniac?
Topic's author
#17
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
-->
@Shila
I don't really see the point of explaining my username to you since you obviously have a good idea of what it means already, and are simply waiting to ridicule me for one thing or another.

But you seem like the stubborn type so I'll go ahead. 

Username: Bibliobibulimaniac

Bibliobibuli can loosely be translated as 'drunk on books' which allows you to infer that I am a book lover. 
Maniac, well I think you know what that means. If not, well, I'm not surprised. 

I honestly don't see the problem, and have no energy to argue further with you. 

If you continue this you are looking for a fight, which is silly. If you want to be silly, go ahead. Just don't expect the drunk on books maniac to join. 
 
#18
RationalMadman
RationalMadman's avatar
Debates: 574
Posts: 19,931
10
11
11
RationalMadman's avatar
RationalMadman
10
11
11
-->
@Athias
This OP only tackles people who pick a side, this is a habit in both threads.
#19
Shila
Shila's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,006
3
3
5
Shila's avatar
Shila
3
3
5
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
--> @Shila
I don't really see the point of explaining my username to you since you obviously have a good idea of what it means already, and are simply waiting to ridicule me for one thing or another. 

But you seem like the stubborn type so I'll go ahead. 

Username: Bibliobibulimaniac

Bibliobibuli can loosely be translated as 'drunk on books' which allows you to infer that I am a book lover. 
Maniac, well I think you know what that means. If not, well, I'm not surprised. 

I honestly don't see the problem, and have no energy to argue further with you. 

If you continue this you are looking for a fight, which is silly. If you want to be silly, go ahead. Just don't expect the drunk on books maniac to join. 
People generally get drunk in a bar or at social gatherings. But you get 'drunk on books'. You like to pile books in a stack so you can get 'drunk on books'. The only way to treat your addiction to alcohol is to get you to read those books instead of allowing you to 'drunk on books'.

#20
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
Both are equally wrong, who is anyone to send people to their death for self serving ambiguous reasons. I say ambiguous because it is implied that their deaths are arbitrary and without any meaning other than they think differently than their executioner. The first at least has a reason, all be it convoluted and bigoted, they hate Jews. The second gives no reason at all, kill Jews for no apparent reason. 

22 days later

Topic's author
#21
bibliobibulimaniac
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 11
0
0
3
bibliobibulimaniac's avatar
bibliobibulimaniac
0
0
3
-->
@Shila
Nice of you to assume I have an alcohol addiction. 

I am 15. 

I like to read. 

Go bully somebody else. 
#22
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
I cannot see a way in which they are inequal in reprehensibility. If something is wrong, it is wrong. The attempted justification doesn't matter.
#23
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Deciding if something is wrong or not is the moral dilemma.

What has the universal authority to apply a universal standard of wrongness or rightness to an individual human's processes.

Collective human decisions are ambiguous, because we will apply morality variably relative to varying contexts.

Therefore, we should also expect variability of individual thought.
#24
3RU7AL
3RU7AL's avatar
Debates: 3
Posts: 14,582
3
4
9
3RU7AL's avatar
3RU7AL
3
4
9
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Both individuals send 100 Jewish people off to their deaths. Both for different reasons. 

Which situation is ethically WORSE???
step one,

clearly define your ethical framework
#25
K_Michael
K_Michael's avatar
Debates: 38
Posts: 749
4
5
10
K_Michael's avatar
K_Michael
4
5
10
-->
@bibliobibulimaniac
Generally speaking arguments about how intent affects the morality of an action has more to do with the intended action, not the motivation/philosophy behind it.

For instance, manslaughter is less morally bad than murder. The case of manslaughter has no intent to kill anyone.

The scenario in #1 gives both parties the intent to kill 100 Jews. Without precise motivations given, it is impossible to compare the two individuals any further. If we assume that the second person (having average morality) has a reasonable motivation for their actions within context, then they are likely performing what they see to be the least reprehensible act (e.g. crashing a bus full of Jews to stop a terrorist who could potentially kill thousands). Alternatively they could be a psychopathic serial killer who just happens to live in a Jewish neighborhood. We have too little information to compare them to the Anti-Semite.
#26
sadolite
sadolite's avatar
Debates: 0
Posts: 3,171
3
2
4
sadolite's avatar
sadolite
3
2
4
I don't see any moral difference, both are sending people to die for no apparent reason to benefit anything other than their own self interest. Are both individuals having these Jews killed in the same place and in the same manor? 
#27
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
And so goes the argument between a moral objectivist and a moral relativist.

Anyway, if you were the "onlooker" as you mentioned above in Post #3, would you view one or the other as worse?
#28
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
Blimey, it's been two months.

Ummmm

The other would seem to have the worse moral dilemma.



Random thought

I often wonder how some people are able to work in an abattoir, day after day.
#29
Mharman
Mharman's avatar
Debates: 23
Posts: 5,300
3
6
10
Mharman's avatar
Mharman
3
6
10
-->
@zedvictor4
The other would seem to have the worse moral dilemma.
Lol. Which one is "the other?"
#30
zedvictor4
zedvictor4's avatar
Debates: 22
Posts: 12,074
3
3
6
zedvictor4's avatar
zedvictor4
3
3
6
-->
@Mharman
The one referred to as "the other individual".

There were only two to choose from.

The zealot and the other.

Call them Jeff and Britney if you like.