My proposed ethical system

[Vera_Ljuba]

In principle, I should imagine Vera is ok with sacrificing the one to save the five. Of course, before arriving at that decision he will assess the value of each of the six to see that their fate does not upset the anticipated balance of consequences. The cure for cancer might be on the operating table (a source of organs) and a future hitler on the other table (in need of a heart transplant). The family of the killed man might be aggrieved to the point of doing a heinous act directed at the hospital. Probabilities will be weighed and a decision made, based on all these unknowables. And if it turns out poorly, “Ahh well, I made the best choices I could with facts I had”.

Since we are NOT omniscient, we always must do what we consider the best solution using the available information. But your analysis is not how I approach the problem. I would not cut up the possible donor, because I would consider the negative golden rule: “Do not do unto others…”

Now, if you would present the good, old runaway trolley scenario, then I would have no problem with redirecting the trolley and kill the single person to save five. But this is exactly the scenario, where the external circumstances force you to make the selection.

In your problem, there are no “forcing” circumstances. Now, suppose that the possible donor is Terri Schiavo, someone in complete vegetative state, for whom there is no rational expectation to recover. In this hypothetical example I would have no problem with harvesting his/her organs to save the other five. And if I would be the one to be harvested, I would have no problem with it either - and I have a living will to prove it.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

I accept this analysis as an accurate summary of my views. Two remarks:

1. If you would insist on including God and our alleged relationship with God, then you MUST PROVE beyond ANY DOUBT (not just beyond reasonable doubt) that God actually exists, and what you say about God is accurate.
2. Even if one disregards the idea of God and our alleged relationship with God, the proposed ethical system is far superior to anything else. Even if you consider interpersonal relationships of lesser importance, they are NOT irrelevant. If one respects others; does not wish to do harm to others, and tries to protect others from harm - the result would be a world which is much better than the existing one. And it does not need a supernatural foundation, it is fully rational.

Well said, even though it is a trivial observation. Nothing happens in a vacuum, and one must consider the acts, the intentions, the outcome and the auxiliary circumstances.

Does the victim or perpetrator decide what the harm us and if sufficient restraint was used?

You still can’t get past
“Don’t do A”
" If you have to do A" just do it a little bit…

Rule 2 contradicts rule 1

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

That is NOT what I said. What I said was: “IF you wish me to take that assumption into consideration, THEN you must prove it”. If you consider this requirement “harmful”, then you did the damage to yourself. I am not responsible for your thoughts.

It happened once that an acquaintance of ours took offence at a neutral remark. When we asked a psychologist friend about it, she asked: “did you intend to hurt him”? When we said, no, we did not intend to hurt, she said: “then it is his problem”.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

You still can’t get past
“Don’t do A”
" If you have to do A" just do it a little bit…

Rule 2 contradicts rule 1

No, it does not.

 

[Hoosier_Daddy]

No, it does not.

Oh, ok then.

 

[Rau]

…I would not cut up the possible donor, because I would consider the negative golden rule: “Do not do unto others…”

To be clear, you would allow the 5 to die, rather than kill one (unknown, but relatively healthy) individual to save them? Or not?

 

[Rau]

…It happened once that an acquaintance of ours took offence at a neutral remark.

Neutrality is perhaps not always an objective assessment, even of truthful statements. It may be that something comes to be regarded as non neutral precisely because some people take offence.

Intending to hurt is a basis to conclude one does wrong. Acting in a way that one reasonably anticipates will do more harm than good, is another. [And there is a third, but your ethical system and mine are irreconcilable on that point.]

 

[Wesrock]

Just to go back to the absolute proof comment, why should I even consider these three ethical points as superior to anything else unless you can absolutely prove that they are objectively so beyond a reasonable doubt? I mean, really, the “I won’t consider something unless it is proven true” is just a self-defeating stance to take, particularly if proof is defined narrowly enough to be quantifiable.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

To be clear, you would allow the 5 to die, rather than kill one (unknown, but relatively healthy) individual to save them? Or not?

Yes, I would let them die.

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Just to go back to the absolute proof comment, why should I even consider these three ethical points as superior to anything else unless you can absolutely prove that they are objectively so beyond a reasonable doubt?

Principles cannot be “proven”, just like epistemological methods cannot be proven. They either work or they do not. Only propositions about the external, objective reality can be proven.

I mean, really, the “I won’t consider something unless it is proven true” is just a self-defeating stance to take, particularly if proof is defined narrowly enough to be quantifiable.

I do not advocate that approach. See above.

 

[Rau]

Yes, I would let them die.

Good to know! By your inaction, you have failed to prevent nett harm. I’m glad, though I don’t know why you’ve chosen this course. **

 

[BornInMarch]

Right. If all doctors truly followed the Hippocratic oath of “do no harm”, there would be no abortions.

The original Hippocratic Oath is far less abstract than the modern one, and outright described the types of harm forbidden so that there was no wiggle room.

Notice how the bolded part outright forbid euthanasia and abortion.
Original Hippocratic Oath:

I swear by Apollo The Healer, by Asclepius, by Hygieia, by Panacea, and by all the Gods and Goddesses, making them my witnesses, that I will carry out, according to my ability and judgment, this oath and this indenture.

To hold my teacher in this art equal to my own parents; to make him partner in my livelihood; when he is in need of money to share mine with him; to consider his family as my own brothers, and to teach them this art, if they want to learn it, without fee or indenture; to impart precept, oral instruction, and all other instruction to my own sons, the sons of my teacher, and to indentured pupils who have taken the physician’s oath, but to nobody else.

**I will use treatment to help the sick according to my ability and judgment, but never with a view to injury and wrong-doing. Neither will I administer a poison to anybody when asked to do so, nor will I suggest such a course. Similarly I will not give to a woman a pessary to cause abortion. But I will keep pure and holy both my life and my art. **I will not use the knife, not even, verily, on sufferers from stone, but I will give place to such as are craftsmen therein.

Into whatsoever houses I enter, I will enter to help the sick, and I will abstain from all intentional wrong-doing and harm, especially from abusing the bodies of man or woman, bond or free. And whatsoever I shall see or hear in the course of my profession, as well as outside my profession in my intercourse with men, if it be what should not be published abroad, I will never divulge, holding such things to be holy secrets.

Now if I carry out this oath, and break it not, may I gain for ever reputation among all men for my life and for my art; but if I transgress it and forswear myself, may the opposite befall me.

 

[BornInMarch]

Yes, I would let them die.

That would be allowing harm to happen. And if you did kill the one person to save the other five than arguably you were forced by circumstance and were acting to do as little harm as possible (5 deaths > 1 death).

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Good to know! By your inaction, you have failed to prevent nett harm. I’m glad, though I don’t know why you’ve chosen this course. **
Simple, because to harvest the organs of one person to save several others is contradicted by the principle of: “Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you”. It all boils down to reciprocal altruism. “Live and let live”. “Respect others”. “Do not use force, except in self defense or in the defense of others”. “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I think that these are very simple principles to guide us in interpersonal affairs and relations.
BornInMarch;14318765:

That would be allowing harm to happen. And if you did kill the one person to save the other five than arguably you were forced by circumstance and were acting to do as little harm as possible (5 deaths > 1 death).

Your argument is incorrect, because there is no “force” involved here.

 

[Rau]

Simple, because to harvest the organs of one person to save several others is contradicted by the principle of: “Do not do unto others what you would not want them do unto you”. … “Respect others”. … “The right of my fist ends where your nose begins”. I think that these are very simple principles to guide us in interpersonal affairs and relations.

Honourable principles - but is this really equivalent to your Rules - or another rule? Is this something new to your life philosophy Vera? I don’t recall this altruism in evidence when you (in other threads) resolved to throw a child out of the lifeboat in which you both found yourself - a lifeboat only safe for one. [Please note: Self-preservation is not the same as self-defence.] What that a case of being “forced” to act?

So…in the lifeboat case, are you saying **you would want **someone to throw you out, or are you (erroneously) asserting a right of self-defence - which is held to “force” you to act?

 

[Rau]

Your argument is incorrect, because there is no “force” involved here.

What constitutes “force” on self to act - how is it to be recognised?

 

[Vera_Ljuba]

Please note: Self-preservation is not the same as self-defence.

Syntactically correct, though the difference is almost nonexistent. In self-defense it is someone who threatens you, in self-preservation it is something that poses a threat to your existence. Of course self-defense comes from self-preservation. We are “allowed” to perform the necessary acts of self-defense because our biologically induced desire for self-preservation is so strong.

What constitutes “force” on self to act - how is it to be recognised?

A direct or indirect threat. Now, please, let’s stop this nonsense. You know perfectly well what is “force”, and you also know perfectly well what “threat” is.

It is fine to explore the “dark corners” of my suggested little system and discover how it stands up under scrutiny. But you are supposed to accept it as a “working hypothesis”. Do you?

 

[e_c]

Syntactically correct, though the difference is almost nonexistent. In self-defense it is someone who threatens you, in self-preservation it is something that poses a threat to your existence. Of course self-defense comes from self-preservation. We are “allowed” to perform the necessary acts of self-defense because our biologically induced desire for self-preservation is so strong.

A direct or indirect threat. Now, please, let’s stop this nonsense. You know perfectly well what is “force”, and you also know perfectly well what “threat” is.

It is fine to explore the “dark corners” of my suggested little system and discover how it stands up under scrutiny. But you are supposed to accept it as a “working hypothesis”. Do you?

You have ignored the problem presented to you by Rau:

So…in the lifeboat case, are you saying you would want someone to throw you out, or are you (erroneously) asserting a right of self-defence - which is held to “force” you to act?

You’ve basically said, “We can because we really want to.” Is that really an answer?

Why not just accept that your principles lead to arbitrary norms? It is what the PhD’s are doing these days. You can put your consequentialsim under a constructivist metaethics and call it a day. Then the battle is no longer on the grounds of morals, but on the grounds of metaphysics.

The false god here is intuition. The average intuition is going to be offended by any normative ethics. People new to moral philosophy are going to try to have their cake and eat it too, trying to satisfy every impulse of their “gut feeling” about right and wrong, when this is impossible (except under “intuitionist” models, of course). This is what is happening here. It is nothing new.

 

[e_c]

Here are three questions:

1. How do we know what warrants the use of force and what doesn’t?
2. What compels one to avoid using “unnecessary” harm when it is done secretly?
3. How do we calculate which kinds of harm are worse when they are qualitatively different kinds of harm?

These are the major problems.

 

[Rau]

Syntactically correct, though the difference is **almost **nonexistent. In self-defense it is someone who threatens you, in self-preservation it is something that poses a threat to your existence. Of course self-defense comes from self-preservation. We are “allowed” to perform the necessary acts of self-defense because our biologically induced desire for self-preservation is so strong.

As you say, there is a difference. The men lining up to gain access to a lifeboat on the titanic had self-preservation in mind. Were places running out and were a man to hurl the child in front of him in the line off the ship so that he might preserve his life (gain access to the last lifeboat), his act is not one of self-defence, though certainly it is motivated by self-preservation. I guess you’d say: “That child indirectly threatened my life, I was forced to act”. Credible moral systems would not hold the man’s act to be one of self-defence, not would any legal system. And I don’t see how such an act passes your “don’t do unto others…” principle.

A direct or indirect threat. Now, please, let’s stop this nonsense. You know perfectly well what is “force”, and you also know perfectly well what “threat” is.

You’re sounding pompous Vera, and without the cred to get away with it. Your arguments tend to be circular - whether one is “forced” to act depends on one’s philosophy doesn’t it, as indicated in my para above.

But you are supposed to accept it as a “working hypothesis”. Do you?

What does this mean? It’s your proposal, expressed in precious few words, seemingly with contradictions. Let’s explore it. Plse advise re: the lifeboat question asked a few posts ago.