The recurring question without an answer

[Freddy]

In a more pragmatic sense, what seems to be a more realistic question is - why are you asking about this particular issue?

You answered your own question in your own post: 'It is generally considered to represent a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. ’

 

[Jerome7]

There are three fonts of morality: intention, object, circumstances.
“Unintentionally” means that the font of intention does not make it a sin, unless there is another bad intention (not stated in the hypothetical).
“Unknowingly” means that the person did not realize that the circumstances would cause grave harm, so that font does not make the act a sin either.
Putting someone in lethal danger, without any good reason, would seem to be an intrinsically evil act, though, so the act would be gravely immoral. The problem with the example is that there is not enough information to tell if putting the person in grave danger was unjustified, and therefore the font of moral object was bad (making the act intrinsically evil).

 

[Freddy]

… there is not enough information to tell if putting the person in grave danger was unjustified…

If you don’t put him ‘in grave danger’ he’s going to keep on shooting people. Isn’t that enough information?

 

[Wm777]

Wm777:

In a more pragmatic sense, what seems to be a more realistic question is - why are you asking about this particular issue?

You answered your own question in your own post: 'It is generally considered to represent a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. ’

You think that makes it more realistic?

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Wm777:

In a more pragmatic sense, what seems to be a more realistic question is - why are you asking about this particular issue?

You answered your own question in your own post: 'It is generally considered to represent a classic clash between two schools of moral thought, utilitarianism and deontological ethics. ’

You think that makes it more realistic?

Your question or the OP’s? The OP put forward a general question. There was no scenario to be classed as realistic or otherwise. Or maybe you mean the trolley problem. Which is a hypothetical. And there seems to be a general confusion regarding what they entail.

 

[Stephen_says]

This isn’t technically the question the OP asks. He asked about “Lethal danger” (I don’t know exactly what that means, but I think he means that innocent people MIGHT die, but that is not guaranteed?). I think that’s why many people here were concerned about creating a scenario where someone can “unknowingly and unintentionally” possibly kill someone. It’s a convoluted question and I don’t think a mental patient actively shooting people is what the OP had in mind.

 

[Freddy]

Maybe there should be a ban on hypotheticals.

 

[Stephen_says]

I stayed up thinking about this for a while, lol, the scenario I came up with is this:

A building is about to be demolished, demolition style, and you are the only person that knows there is someone inside. There is a guy 1000 yards away about to press the button, and you have no way of communicating, but you have a bazooka (ridiculous, but go with it lol, I was going to say sniper rifle, but then you could just shoot his finger off). The demolition man is unintentionally putting the squatter in the building in danger. Is it permissible to shoot him with the bazooka in order to save the life of the squatter? What if there was a family in the building?

 

[EXdrinker]

Actually, what brought this to mind was when a friend of mine once said “Bill and Hillary Clinton are just stupid”. What she was really saying was “I don’t like Bill and Hillary Clinton”. I reminded her “you may not like the Clintons, but whatever else you might be able to say about them, one thing they’re not is ‘stupid’ — they’re highly, highly intelligent people”. She was not one to do a lot of critical thinking in life. She replied “yes, but they’re just stupid”. No use trying to reason with her further.

I agree with your friend. The Clinton’s are stupid.
(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[OKComputer]

For me it’s numbers. The death of 300 people, while deeply tragic, would inflict much less suffering then the death of 3000. You do what you can to save the most people.

 

[tafan2]

Makes no sense, in either case, it’s the death of 3300 people. The question, are you willing to kill 3009 to save 300? If you are willing to kill 300 to save 3000, it seems like the only logical answer would be yes. But then, why not kill 3299 to save 1?

 

[EndTimes]

“For me it’s numbers. The death of 300 people, while deeply tragic, would inflict much less suffering then the death of 3000. You do what you can to save the most people.”

_______________________________________________________________________________________

"But one of them, named Caiaphas, who was high priest that year, said to them, “You know nothing at all!.. You do not realize that it is better for you that one man die for the people than that the whole nation perish.”… Caiaphas did not say this on his own. Instead, as high priest that year, he was prophesying that Jesus would die for the nation"

 

[OKComputer]

Yeah, I obviously see it very differently. Oh well, it doesn’t matter. We’re just two people on the internet with different POVs. Happens everyday.

 

[Inquiry]

Putting someone in lethal danger, without any good reason, would seem to be an intrinsically evil act, though, so the act would be gravely immoral.

I don’t think this is quite correct. If an act is intrinsically evil, there is no reason that could make it good. Putting someone in lethal danger without any good reason would be an evil act, but putting someone in lethal danger is not itself intrinsically evil.

 

[BT3241]

So a drunk driver should be shot dead before he does any harm if you can’t stop him?

 

[tafan2]

I am just trying to understand how you see it differently. Two scenarios:
3300 people will die unless you kill 300 of them first. So it’s good to kill them.
3300 people will die unless you kill 3000 of them first. It’s good to kill them ? If not, why?

 

[Bender]

I would offer the example, and it may be a fairly lurid one, of a crazed, mentally deficient person who gets hold of a gun and many rounds of ammo.

This is still a scenario with an aggressor. The “crazed” person is just like an animal, or a force of nature. Obviously the lethal force is allowed.

The problem is generic, no need to try to make is specific. It deals with “principles”. The problem occurs when the “aggressor” is totally unaware of the danger he poses. The word “aggressor” is not really applicable, since it includes a “malicious intent”.

Again, the question is simple. Someone, out of ignorance places others into lethal danger. There is only one way to prevent others from dying, and it would be the killing of this person. What does the church say about this hypothetical scenario?

As usual, the responses are a “school of red herrings”. Not enough information, asking for specifics, etc. In ethics classes it is a usual method of presenting a totally off-the-wall, highly improbable, but still logically possible quasi-problems. Lifeboat scenarios, for example. How many times does one happen to be in a lifeboat dilemma? But it deals with the question of “scarce resources”.

It is possible to have someone to carry a lethal virus, unknowingly. It is possible that the person would be willing to go into a quarantine, IF he knew about it. But he does not. If allowed, he would spread the virus and millions would die. In the hypothetical scenario the only solution is to kill this person.

If there would be any other solution, that would have to be used. The only difference between this problem and the “unjust aggressor” is the absence of malice and the knowledge. In the case of the unjust aggressor the church accepts that lethal force is allowed. Why not here?

 

[goout]

Babaganoush:

Give us a scenario then.

No. I’ll pass. If someone cannot think of one themselves then I don’t imagine they’d be able to offer anything worthwhile to the discussion. I’ll leave you to think of one and we’ll take it from there.

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

These hypotheticals usually lead to circular and pointless arguing, because any variable can be interjected into the hypothetical to “move the goalpost”.
Relativists believe they can neutralize morality with hypotheticals, but the attempt is silly.

 

[Bender]

The problem with hypotheticals is…they are not real. And morality is the evaluation of human acts. Acts are real, not hypothetical.

Should we create actual lifeboat scenarios in an ethics class? Should we actually build a track with a runaway trolley, to make it real??

 

[BlueMaxx]

I don’t know if shooting the driver is a plausible solution.

I was grasping at hypothetical straws!