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

[Volenta]

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 have the possibility to save without sacrifice, that's great, but the benefits still outweigh the costs in the first scenario of the Trolley problem. Acting isn't only valid in perfect scenarios, you should also address harder problems, like the ones that do involve sacrifice.

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!

If I did it the way you describe it, I could not sustain it for a very long time and thereby not maximizing my input and saving less people than potentially possible. It's far more sustainable to send a percentage of your salary you can easily life without, saving lots of people over a long period of time. If everybody did this, the problems in Africa would be fixed in no time. I suggest you read Peter Singer's The Life You Can Save, which goes deeper into this problem then I can.

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)

Your money actually is taken away from you to help others. That's what happens in a society with taxes. But then we are talking in the context of society and laws again, and you said you were talking about morality when talking about rights. So, when taking it to morality, you also have the responsibility to act and give money you don't really need to save children in Africa. If you don't, you are partly responsible of their death (I say partly because others are also responsible). To make it more clear: you also have a moral obligation to save a child that drowns in a pond if no one is around and you're capable of saving her from death without sacrificing yourself. But if you still choose not to help the child, then you are responsible for her death. Only because you can't see the children in Africa and are far removed from your situation, doesn't mean you don't have moral obligations towards them.

It may not be desirable to live in a society that forces you to give away your money—which raise moral questions themselves, work motivation problems for example—but that doesn't mean that it's not morally a good thing to do (out of free choice).

Like you said, I argued for giving small amounts (although it may be not that small, depending on your income), where your point indeed becomes intact. But it becomes intact because giving away all of your money is a totally different solution with other moral implications. Like I argued, it's not sustainable and useful. In that case you're right that it isn't morally the right choice. But you should always be aware of better alternative solutions to moral problems. You suggested one that isn't really effective.

By the way, I don't find it very useful to talk in terms like rights; obligations addresses the problems better.

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.

It actually isn't more rational. All I have seen you do is appealing to common sense and your feelings of right and wrong.

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.

I don't think it's a waste of time. I enjoy discussion and differences in opinion. The world would be boring without it.

[brimstoneSalad]

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.

Debate always helps us work out our own beliefs better, and learn new ways of explaining things, doesn't it?
It's great that way

The answer to your question and disagreement lies in the distinction between social contract, and the larger game-theory applications of moral rules as a slightly different but superficially similar notion (which you referenced somewhat), and theoretical isolated cases of moral action (without outside or systemic consequence).

[klonoa]

Very difficult to vote.

I think i need more input on this.
If it was a long piece of road where oncoming traffic could clearly see the obstruction
and the woman had put on her alarm lights etc. I think she is pretty much in the clear and she didn't do anything wrong.

If it was in a tight foreseeable corner it's a bit of a different story.

Nevertheless as a motorcyclist (who only has a motorcycle licence)
I know to always drive very cautiously and to accept the unexpected.
Always look again, always shoulder check, always slow down at junctions, be gentle with the brakes, etc.
But those things only decrease risk. There is always a chance of something unexpected (like a car stopping on the left lane) and you need to accept those possibilities (and the result of those possibilities) before you sit on a motorcycle.

That said it is also the responsibility of others to mind others.

This is very difficult but:
I think there are no guilty ones.
The motorcyclist where driving too fast,
the woman meant no harm and
I think the woman already feels really bad about the whole thing which is punishment enough.

[Volenta]

@klonoa
That's the 'no' option then, right?

***

I'm interested to hear from the people that voted for the second option—except for Viktorius_the_Third, which has been discussed already (kind of).

[Neptual]

@klonoa
That's the 'no' option then, right?

***

I'm interested to hear from the people that voted for the second option—except for Viktorius_the_Third, which has been discussed already (kind of).

What she did was illegal and she deserves to be punished. But life in jail? In Texas you can't even get life in jail for homicide. And when it comes to death laws Texas is the lowest it gets.

[Volenta]

What she did was illegal and she deserves to be punished. But life in jail? In Texas you can't even get life in jail for homicide. And when it comes to death laws Texas is the lowest it gets.

So your reason is: because the law says so? Have you considered the possibility of the law being wrong about it? And it would surprise me if you agree with everything the law says. I want your opinion.

[Neptual]

What she did was illegal and she deserves to be punished. But life in jail? In Texas you can't even get life in jail for homicide. And when it comes to death laws Texas is the lowest it gets.

So your reason is: because the law says so? Have you considered the possibility of the law being wrong about it? And it would surprise me if you agree with everything the law says. I want your opinion.

No, perhaps I should have clarified this more. Or even stated it in the now that the thought comes to mind.

My reason for choosing the second option is based off of today's society. You see anyone who isn't vegan/vegetarian would easily have agreed with putting her in prison for the rest of her life. If anything I'm not agreeing with the law I'm saying that the chances of the judge being a vegan/vegetarian or the jury being vegan/vegetarian is highly unlikely and would effect how they would choose a sentencing. Nonetheless it wouldn't be fair to say that vegans/vegetarians wouldn't also be biased.

In a different scenario where a baby was saved and adult died instead the punishment would have not been so severe because I can assure you that a lot of people value human lives over other animals lives which is natural.

In other words this is a "Your baby or your dog" situation and the judge certainly choose the baby.

[Volenta]

My reason for choosing the second option is based off of today's society. You see anyone who isn't vegan/vegetarian would easily have agreed with putting her in prison for the rest of her life. If anything I'm not agreeing with the law I'm saying that the chances of the judge being a vegan/vegetarian or the jury being vegan/vegetarian is highly unlikely and would effect how they would choose a sentencing. Nonetheless it wouldn't be fair to say that vegans/vegetarians wouldn't also be biased.

In a different scenario where a baby was saved and adult died instead the punishment would have not been so severe because I can assure you that a lot of people value human lives over other animals lives which is natural.

In other words this is a "Your baby or your dog" situation and the judge certainly choose the baby.

This is still not your opinion then, right? It really sounds like you're basing it on the opinion of the majority, or on how it's probably going to be.

My reason for choosing the 'no' option isn't purely based on the veg*n perspective. It's just that punishment has no effect whatsoever. She did not cause the accident on purpose, and her intentions were good ones. But of course I know that we live in a society where one judges people as if they have moral responsibility where it's actually unjustified to do so, but that doesn't change my opinion.

[Viktorius_the_Third]

Okay Volenta.
If the intentions are right, can i rob a bank and give the money to poor people?
can i kill a person who damages other human beeings with his way of life?
can i kill a multiple rapist, because my sister was a victim?

if youve said yes to one of these (last one) you are not beeing rational!
if youve said no, than you see what i mean. In germany its called "Selbstjustiz" and i dont think there is such a word in english.
Its if you break the law, because you think its right AND damage someone else with that action because you think they've deserved it!
She stopped her car on a highway! Thats strictly forbidden.

You cant base every decision on the vegan lifestyle! At least thats what comes to mind. If i had to kill a human or a pig or an ape i would still shoot the animal without question, because humans do have more value for other humans (survival instinct social structures and so on)

[thebestofenergy]

If the intentions are right, can i rob a bank and give the money to poor people?

I need to know lots of other things. How much do I steal? Do I need to hurt someone in the process? Are there bad consequences to me? How many people can I save by doing so?

can i kill a person who damages other human beeings with his way of life?

Same thing as before. Will the person keep damaging? Are there going to be bad consequences for me? What is the damage he/she does to other human beings?

can i kill a multiple rapist, because my sister was a victim?

The fact that your sister was a victim doesn't matter in a moral decision. That's just a sentimental addition.
Will the rapist keep raping people, and the police will not be able to catch him? How many will he rape? And there will be bad consequences for me if I kill him? Which bad consequence?
If the situation is that he'll keep raping lots of people and ruining other's lives/killing his victims, no one will ever catch him, and you'd not be caught when killing him, then the morally right choice might be to kill him.
If you don't know a morally right answer, it's not because there's no answer, it's because of ignorance; you don't know enough about it to establish what to do.
In certain situation it would be OK not to kill the rapist (e.g. he wouldn't rape anyone anymore), but in another situation it would be better to kill him.

She stopped her car on a highway! Thats strictly forbidden.

She did it for a reason, and she didn't know that particular thing would happen. However, I would need to know more information about the incident.

You cant base every decision on the vegan lifestyle! At least thats what comes to mind. If i had to kill a human or a pig or an ape i would still shoot the animal without question, because humans do have more value for other humans (survival instinct social structures and so on)

We're not trying to base ourselves on the 'vegan lifestyle'. What leads you to think so? We're trying to make a rational decision.
NO ONE is saying that they would choose a pig here over a human. What are you referring to?