News: Women Saves Ducks, Goes to Prison for Life [POLL]

[Volenta]

@Volenta:
haha actually i dont really care about any laws! I think you should be able to break any laws, but you have to face the consequences! As i stated in another thread. I will try to not harm any other beeing. While harm is for me really something dmging! to steal 1000 dollar from a billionaire isnt dmging! as well as to steal one bread from a normal man! its hard to say where its dmging and where its not. but to come back to the topic:
i didnt mean to be "fully responisble" by law but morally!
If a spider dies outside, because i didnt open a door to let her in, that is not my problem. But as soon as ive opened the door and she got in, i am fully responisble for her. if she dies of old age or behind a table or something im not... i have to see her to know of her existence. but as soon as i see her and i dont try to get her out, ive killed her. and i feel wrong everytime and i try to help them all, but ive got a balcony and everytime i open that door theres a high propability of a spider getting in

i dont go after strict rules in my life! and of cause i will safe 100 babies even if i have to kill an old man... or whatever! but its often not as easy as that! and to not dmg anyone is something i get around pretty well

Then why didn't you pull the lever? I don't understand why you wouldn't save 5 persons instead of 1 in the first scenario (second is a totally different matter, where I explained my look at it here). Maybe you don't care about the law, but about your personal sense of guilt, or your basing your morals like brimstoneSalad suggested on deontological basis? You say you're basing it on the consequences, but can you explain what they are in your view?

You seem to forget that not doing something at all, is also a choice—you are already involved in the scenario (bad luck ). It's strange, because your definition of responsibility is on the other hand very broad. If I order a package, and the postman happens to die in an accident on his way towards me, would you really say I'm responsible? I think what you really mean to say is that the cause and effect (chain) caused it to happen (not sure there is a word for this, anyone?), but saying your responsible is misleading.

Edit: typo

[Neptual]

When you're at a sentencing and no one at the jury is a vegan, the worse possible sentencing comes out afterwards. It's like if a 1960s case that involved an African American man saving other African American men, but in the process killed a white man. They would probably lynch him.

Also "A bunch of baby ducks, send'em to the moon" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l6qpme_m0B0

[Viktorius_the_Third]

@Volenta:
haha actually i dont really care about any laws! I think you should be able to break any laws, but you have to face the consequences! As i stated in another thread. I will try to not harm any other beeing. While harm is for me really something dmging! to steal 1000 dollar from a billionaire isnt dmging! as well as to steal one bread from a normal man! its hard to say where its dmging and where its not. but to come back to the topic:
i didnt mean to be "fully responisble" by law but morally!
If a spider dies outside, because i didnt open a door to let her in, that is not my problem. But as soon as ive opened the door and she got in, i am fully responisble for her. if she dies of old age or behind a table or something im not... i have to see her to know of her existence. but as soon as i see her and i dont try to get her out, ive killed her. and i feel wrong everytime and i try to help them all, but ive got a balcony and everytime i open that door theres a high propability of a spider getting in

i dont go after strict rules in my life! and of cause i will safe 100 babies even if i have to kill an old man... or whatever! but its often not as easy as that! and to not dmg anyone is something i get around pretty well

Then why didn't you pull the lever? I don't understand why you wouldn't save 5 persons instead of 1 in the first scenario (second is a totally different matter, where I explained my look at it here). Maybe you don't care about the law, but about your personal sense of guilt, or your basing your morals like brimstoneSalad suggested on deontological basis? You say you're basing it on the consequences, but can you explain what they are in your view?

You seem to forget that not doing something at all, is also a choice—you are already involved in the scenario (bad luck ). It's strange, because your definition of responsibility is on the other hand very broad. If I order a package, and the postman happens to die in an accident on his way towards me, would you really say I'm responsible? I think what you really mean to say is that the cause and effect (chain) caused it to happen (not sure there is a word for this, anyone?), but saying your responsible is misleading.

Edit: typo

sorry for the late answer. was quite busy the last days.
well actually its pretty easy.
If you are involved and you have a choice, you dont know the outcome. Maybe all of those 5 guys were single and would be killed the day after? and the 1 guy had 5 kids... then whats your moral to killing an innocent father?
if you dont know what you are doing, dont do it, because chances are you are probably wrong! Humans have this BAD habit of deciding with their stomach.
Which in my case was never really strong because i learned early in my life that this feeling misleads me far more than a rational thought.
You THOUGHT 5 are more valuable as 1. But what would those five kids say? Because you killed their dad to save five guys who are now dead anyways.
Basically YOU KILLED THEIR DAD ON PURPOSE.
I know its unreal, but there are many other situations that could happen. maybe not as extreme as this but my point stands: if you dont know the facts, dont get involved and let things happen. Its bad luck but at least its nature. (in some sense)

I dont think im anything specific. I dont think im a part of a group. at least im not trying to be.
I am me and i try to base every descission on my logic, which excludes feelings. Thats all i can tell you.

[thebestofenergy]

sorry for the late answer. was quite busy the last days.
well actually its pretty easy.
If you are involved and you have a choice, you dont know the outcome. Maybe all of those 5 guys were single and would be killed the day after? and the 1 guy had 5 kids... then whats your moral to killing an innocent father?
if you dont know what you are doing, dont do it, because chances are you are probably wrong! Humans have this BAD habit of deciding with their stomach.
Which in my case was never really strong because i learned early in my life that this feeling misleads me far more than a rational thought.
You THOUGHT 5 are more valuable as 1. But what would those five kids say? Because you killed their dad to save five guys who are now dead anyways.
Basically YOU KILLED THEIR DAD ON PURPOSE.
I know its unreal, but there are many other situations that could happen. maybe not as extreme as this but my point stands: if you dont know the facts, dont get involved and let things happen. Its bad luck but at least its nature. (in some sense)

I dont think im anything specific. I dont think im a part of a group. at least im not trying to be.
I am me and i try to base every descission on my logic, which excludes feelings. Thats all i can tell you.

There's a much higher chance that there's a higher loss if those 5 people die.
There's a chance that you kill that 1 guy that has 5 kids, but what if he doesn't have any and the other 5 have kids instead?
You let them all 5 die?
If you don't know them, if you don't know how much harm/good they do, then killing the 1 guy is the best option, since propability says that it'd be a bigger loss if the other 5 die.

[Viktorius_the_Third]

sorry for the late answer. was quite busy the last days.
well actually its pretty easy.
If you are involved and you have a choice, you dont know the outcome. Maybe all of those 5 guys were single and would be killed the day after? and the 1 guy had 5 kids... then whats your moral to killing an innocent father?
if you dont know what you are doing, dont do it, because chances are you are probably wrong! Humans have this BAD habit of deciding with their stomach.
Which in my case was never really strong because i learned early in my life that this feeling misleads me far more than a rational thought.
You THOUGHT 5 are more valuable as 1. But what would those five kids say? Because you killed their dad to save five guys who are now dead anyways.
Basically YOU KILLED THEIR DAD ON PURPOSE.
I know its unreal, but there are many other situations that could happen. maybe not as extreme as this but my point stands: if you dont know the facts, dont get involved and let things happen. Its bad luck but at least its nature. (in some sense)

I dont think im anything specific. I dont think im a part of a group. at least im not trying to be.
I am me and i try to base every descission on my logic, which excludes feelings. Thats all i can tell you.

There's a much higher chance that there's a higher loss if those 5 people die.
There's a chance that you kill that 1 guy that has 5 kids, but what if he doesn't have any and the other 5 have kids instead?
You let them all 5 die?
If you don't know them, if you don't know how much harm/good they do, then killing the 1 guy is the best option, since propability says that it'd be a bigger loss if the other 5 die.

But can you really say that youve killed a man and justify if by saving 5 others?
If i save 5 humans. Does that give me the right to kill one?
I Dont think so. If you stay out of it what happens happened for a reason (stupid 5 guys that walk on a train or what ever while the one guy was not in danger. so you killed him. If you dont help the 5 guys if you dont hurt anyone else that thats wrong. but if you hurt anyone by trying to help someone. than only an extreme case could justify your action. and even then... if you think rational. even then you shouldnt do anything.

[thebestofenergy]

But can you really say that youve killed a man and justify if by saving 5 others?
If i save 5 humans. Does that give me the right to kill one?
I Dont think so. If you stay out of it what happens happened for a reason (stupid 5 guys that walk on a train or what ever while the one guy was not in danger. so you killed him. If you dont help the 5 guys if you dont hurt anyone else that thats wrong. but if you hurt anyone by trying to help someone. than only an extreme case could justify your action. and even then... if you think rational. even then you shouldnt do anything.

If i save 5 humans. Does that give me the right to kill one?

You don't kill that one after you've saved the 5 guys. You kill that one in order to save the others.
Without knowing if any of those 6 people are good or not, is it morally right to kill a person to save 5? Yes.
Like I said, there's a bigger loss if 5 people die instead of 1.
Most people wouldn't do it because they'd have to take a responsibility that they don't want to take, and/or they don't have the nerve to kill a person.
But the results count. And if you decide not to act, 5 people are going to be dead instead of one at the end.

[Volenta]

But can you really say that youve killed a man and justify if by saving 5 others?

Your choice would have given the most happiness/wellbeing for the most possibly beings with high probability, so I would say yes. Of course their can be unknown factors like you said, but given the probability and it being a thought-experiment, it would be the right choice in that situation.

If i save 5 humans. Does that give me the right to kill one?

Rights have nothing to do with morality (well, not if you take a consequentialism approach that is). That is what I earlier meant with caring about the law—although I'm not sure what the law says about such things—or your personal sense of guilt/perfection. That shouldn't be in the way of making the morally right decision.

stupid 5 guys that walk on a train or what ever while the one guy was not in danger.

This is not the case in the first scenario, which I explained is not the same as the second one. In the first case they are both (the 5 and the 1) on the railway track, so both stupid (or being placed there by some evil man ) and in danger. By pulling the lever you switch the train to the other track. Both groups are involved, different from the fat man that isn't.

[brimstoneSalad]

Rights have nothing to do with morality (well, not if you take a consequentialism approach that is).

Although, the existence of legal rights via the social contract may affect the consequences of the action. If you would be executed for the act, it then arguably becomes two lives for five- one of which is your own.
An action that results in your own death is morally even more complicated, because a morality that lacks a prime sense of self preservation is less memetically fit, so may actually be inferior to one that has such a provision.

[Volenta]

Although, the existence of legal rights via the social contract may affect the consequences of the action. If you would be executed for the act, it then arguably becomes two lives for five- one of which is your own.
An action that results in your own death is morally even more complicated, because a morality that lacks a prime sense of self preservation is less memetically fit, so may actually be inferior to one that has such a provision.

Yes, you're right.

I don't think actions that result in your own death are morally more complicated in theory, but it certainly is in practice.

[Viktorius_the_Third]

I don't really think you get what i meant by saying "to have the right to do something"
as i said before i dont care about laws (morally spoken)

i mean do you think that you have acted morally right by killing one person in order to save five?
Well i dont. And i do not agree with you, that it is moral highground to say that saving more is equal to better.
Saving people whenever you can? YES!
Saving people whether the costs? NO!
If you really think so, go to afrika! Give them all your money! All of it! Work harder and give it all up for them!
Because you can save way more lives by giving up your own!
If you would follow your rule you would have to do that!
BUT because you have worked for your money noone has the right, to take it from you, to save others! Right? (if its just a small amout so it doesnt hurt you my rule becomes intact) I thought so. Now we have to conclude why noone has the right to take all your money (in comparison to the 1 v 5)
You earned your money (you stood on the right side of the track! whether it was luck or knowledge that it was deactivated)
Now someone has the choice to take all your money you are earning every month (pull the lever)
and save 100s of people in africa from starving! (them not beeing run over by trains)


If you still dont get, why your opinion is not the moral highground (i dont say mine is! but its definatly more rational!) then i cant explain it to you any better. Then im really sorry that ive wasted your time. BUT i have to thank you. Because thanks to you i have come to this comparision which is pretty much the best explanation i can think of.