Moral Dilemmas
[I came across this recently on one of my many trawls through my favourite websites and thought it might be interesting to discuss it further. A series of Moral Dilemmas where proposed and people were asked to give their answers and reasons. I’ll post the ‘official’ results after any comments have died down.]
Dilemma Number 1:
THOMSON'S VIOLINIST
You wake up in hospital, next to a world famous violinist connected to you with various tubes. You've been kidnapped by the Music Appreciation Society. Aware of the maestro's impending death, they hooked you up to the violinist. If you stay connected, he will be totally cured in nine months. You are unlikely to suffer harm. No one else can save him. Do you have an obligation to stay connected?
[For me the answer is clear. I would have no obligation to stay connected to the violinist.
Why? - Because I would be there against my will. People should be treated as Ends and not as a Means to an End – no matter what the consequences. People should not be used or valued for what they can provide for others but should be valued for what they are. The consequences of treating people as Means and not Ends could also lead to all kinds of ‘justified’ actions including slave labour and the farming of organs.
The unlikelihood of suffering further harm (over and above being kidnapped and deprived of liberty for nine months) is not an issue, nor is the alleged fact that no one else can save the violinist. If the Music Appreciation Society had hired you to perform the same act and you had agreed to the conditions then the Moral Dilemma is much reduced. However, it is still possible to change your mind at some point during the nine months of ‘treatment’ and withdraw your co-operation. You would probably be in breach of a contractual obligation, but not a moral one.
What do you think?]
About Me
- CyberKitten
- I have a burning need to know stuff and I love asking awkward questions.
25 comments:
I would say that you have no moral obligation to stay there, because no choice was offered.
however, i would probably enter into negotiations regarding payment for services rendered & treatment while hooked up before insisting on being released:-)
After all, it would be a shame if the world lost a genius of any kind.
But just a shame. Slavery is a moral crime.
Good post. I look forward to the next one.
weird situation.
I think the fact that the situation began with immoral actions (kidnapping, holding someone against their will/permission, doing medical operations on someone who is unconscience) lends it's self to the solution that I would be under no moral obligation to sustain this violinist's life. However, I would probably stay hooked up to the person. Like Mrs. Aginoth said,
I would ask for money--time is money.
OK, sign me up with the opportunists - I'd do it for money. Out of the goodness of my heart? Perhaps if the violinist was a close family member or if I were a devoted fan of his or music in general I might do it if asked, but never under the conditions described.
This scenario doesn't even move obligation meter. Would saving his life save others? NO. Would performing this procedure help develope it so that others may benefit? Doesn't say so. Is saving his life at the cost of nine months of mine do ANY good other than saving a musician.
And what is he being saved for... his talent? How superficial, how arogant. I'd be just as inclined to save the life of your average Joe as someone of extreme musical talent. Perhaps more so. The musician had his day in the sun. The average, everyday guy may be realizing his potential just around the corner. Why not give the nobody a chance to be somebody rather than letting the somebody continue being the same somebody? Wouldn't the richness of humanity be argmented by a wider variety of talent rather than more of the same?
Sorry My. Violinists, everybody has to go someday. Just be glad yours were so blessed.
~Mike
I'd do it for a lot of money, but then again, I couldn't care less if every violinist dropped dead tomorrow.
uberchap asked: If you are imorally, illegally or otherwise against your will put in the position of being able to save someone's life does that make the life less worth saving than if you chose to do it.
Or put it another way:
What right has the Music Appreciation Society to take 9 months of your freedom to save the violinist? Is his life worth that? Especially as you are aiding him against your will.. Is it morally acceptable to take even part of someones life in order to save anothers?
uberchap also asked: Who or what decides the importance of life?
IRL...? Usually the Courts.
Uberchap said: You've dodged the issue. As usual.
Gee, Thanks…. And there I was thinking I was *debating* the issue.
Uberchap said: The question is does an illegal act to save a life make that life less worth saving? That is the crux of this issue.
You appear to be making the assumption that there is a moral obligation to save the violinists life (in this case) and that the circumstances (the kidnapping) might reduce that obligation. The value of the violinist’s life is neither diminished nor enhanced by his only chance of survival being there against their will. Personally I would feel under no obligation to save his life in the first place regardless of the methodology of my arrival in the situation. We cannot save everyone nor should we feel obligated to try to do so. We should not be expected to live our lives purely for the benefit of others. Of course there are people who choose to do so – but it is their choice. They have accepted a personal obligation to help others.
Uberchap said: The courts decide the value of life? Are you sure? Most peoples' lives are lost at the whim of others way before the courts even get involved.
They seem to decide on such issues on a daily basis. But your statement is also true in the sense that courts do get involved after lives have been lost – but they still make judgements regarding value even after the event.
Uberchap said: The Music Appreciation Society has no right to take your time to save a life, obviously. But do we have any restrictions on walking away and causing a death?
Ultimately no. In the case being discussed the violinist will die without 'my' intervention. But my refusal to become involved will not 'cause' his death.
CyberKitten, I had the same idea but of a different version. I wrote it after reading yours. However, I think yours is far better.
roya - Thanks & welcome.
Personally I would feel under no obligation to save his life in the first place regardless of the methodology of my arrival in the situation.
What if the methodology of your arrival was because he was your father and he asked you to?
Sadie Lou asked: What if the methodology of your arrival was because he was your father and he asked you to?
That is, of course, a completely different situation. Firstly I have accepted that I have an obligation to my family to do whatever I can to come to their aid. Second, I have been asked to help rather than being forced to against my will.
uberchap said: This view of yours here, Cyberkitten, seems to be in stark contrast to your posts about intervening in the swatting of a wasp.
How so? Preventing the wasp from being killed for no good reason cost me nothing & was an action performed through my own free will. If my powers of persuasion had failed I would not have intervened to save the wasp.
uberchap also said: it seems to have flushed out your reaction to living in a community. Which is fine.
Really? You're going to have to elaborate on that one. I 'live' in many different communities & seem to do OK in them.
uberchap then said: I assume that if you don't feel obliged to give then you accept that no one's obliged to help you. Not a recipe for a decent world.
I certainly wouldn't feel obliged to 'give' in the admittedly strange example quoted in the original posting. That doesn't mean that I don't give. I have at least three lumps of money coming out of my bank account every month to various charities and I have been told that I can be overgenerous with family and friends - its that I *chose* what to give and who to give it to.
uberchap said: I know that we can't help everybody but does that mean that we shouldn't feel an obligation to help anybody.
Not at all. The point I'm trying to get across is that we, as individuals, chose what obligations we take on. It's a matter of free will. We cannot (or at least should not) be forced into obligations we would not take on in any case - although I do know that this happens.
OY VEY, Dear Darling Cyberkitten. These "Supposing's"....
It's too...out if the realm of possability for me to even consider the question...Everything about the question stretches my suspension of disbelief to the point of distraction! (lol)...In the first place The Music Appreciation Society wouldn't choose me to save this great Violinist. I'm too old. I don't believe the MAS would kidnap anybody because it is not in their By Laws...(Have you read them???...If you can invent the MAS I can create their By Laws)...
Then, you neglected to say that the famous Violinst was Joshua Bell...a very important piece of information...and if kidnapped I just might agree to help save HIM, though as already stated I am not a good candidate for being hooked up to anyone for 9 months...Maybe Joshua Bell could save me!!
I find it difficult to talk about weather I have a moral dilemma or not when I don't have much belief in the realness of the circumstance proposed. I am more fascinated by the discussion that has happened...I love that you have the ability to stir people and make them think and act based on pretty much bogus circumstances. (Well, not completely bogus...there really could be a Music Appreciation Society and there probably is one it's just using a different name.)
And in response to something I belueve the wonderful Mr.Althouse said...as an 'artist' myself, and someone that reveres other artists and finds their contribultion to me 'life saving' in the extreme, I would sooner agree to save the no named famous Violinst over the truck drive, in a heartbeat. But that's just me. Oh I hate the hypotheticals...! Give me a real dilemma that I actually might have to deal with! And I say this with love my dear Cyberkitten...
Naomi said: Give me a real dilemma that I actually might have to deal with! And I say this with love my dear Cyberkitten...
I'll see what I can do. I'm sure there's some real dilemma's out there somewhere [grin].
Thanks for your comments. The dilemma (together with two more I'll post later in the month) are from a website I frequent often. When the debate dies down a bit I'll post the results/stats of what other people thought on this issue.
CY--
See, the fact that you do feel a moral obligation to help your own family but not anyone else, lends it's self to that debate we had awhile back about humanity.
It was on JA's blog and I remember talking about Moral Law and you said something about being accountable to be moral as a human sharing this planet with other humans. That's why you desire to be moral--you do not desire to be moral because you fear the wrath of God. You do not desire to be moral because you want to please God. You desire to be moral because that's what benefits society--that's what makes us human; to do the *right* thing as often as possible, right?
So then why would it only be a moral obligation to serve your own family and not others?
If you are, indeed, a humanist at heart--you would want to step up to the plate and bat for all humans, not just your own family.
Sadie Lou asked: You desire to be moral because that's what benefits society--that's what makes us human; to do the *right* thing as often as possible, right?
Well, I may be an atheist - but that doesn't make me a moral vaccuum [chuckle]. I don't actually base my ethics on what benefits society (or the greatest number). I'm not a Utilitarian. I (and I think many people) *choose* our moral obligations. They are not inbuilt (by & large) or given from outside.
It's not only my family that I feel obligated to help (and it is possible that if I particularly disliked a member of my family then I would feel less obligated or not obligated to help them) but also other people I like/respect etc. I also help strangers in a more casual way - giving to charities etc..
But I'm not in the business of stepping up the the plate for *all* humans. That would be a super-human task after all and therefore slightly outside of my remit.
Ah well, actually, i would say that if the MAS had come knocking on my door, explained the situation & asked me to save the violinists life, I would have a moral obligation to do so, if possible without totally screwing my own life.
It's something that only I can do, which will benifit another person, and humanity as a whole, and therefore it is my moral obligation to try & do this thing.
Which is why i said i would enter into negotiations before demanding to be released.
However, by kidnapping me they have reduced my moral impetus to assist them so when weighing up themerit vs cost to myself, I may decide not to help.
As i said in a previous comment somewhere, morality is individual, and changes with the circumstances as well as personal opinion!
It's not only my family that I feel obligated to help (and it is possible that if I particularly disliked a member of my family then I would feel less obligated or not obligated to help them) but also other people I like/respect etc. I also help strangers in a more casual way - giving to charities etc..
Wow.
You hold yourself to your own, little system of morals. Is there anything that you do that you do not particulalry WANT to do?
I don't mean going to work, because even though you might not want to go to work, making money directly benefits you and the things you need or want.
I'm talking about doing things for others that you don't want to do but you do it out of moral obligation.
Sadie Lou said: Wow. You hold yourself to your own, little system of morals.
Erm... Of course. What do you think I did? Over my lifetime I have developed (and am still developing) a personal moral stanpoint & do my best to live within it. Don't most people?
Sadie Lou asked: Is there anything that you do that you do not particulalry WANT to do? I'm talking about doing things for others that you don't want to do but you do it out of moral obligation.
Of course I do. Not everything I do is because I want to do it. I've beed dragged to places I didn't want to go, done things I didn't want to do (though not so many these days - I'm getting pretty good @ saying 'No') and hung out with people I didn't want to be with. I was brought up to be polite & don't like being rude or making a scene. Though I'm not sure if that's what you mean... But yes, not everything I do is for purely selfish reasons.
You're right, that's not what I meant.
I didn't mean to sound persnickity about having your own code of morals but you're wrong that most people follow their own sense of morals in the way that you do.
What I meant about doing things that you don't want to do is like this:
and you do not have to answer any of these; just think about them:
Do you give to charity when you don't seem to even have enough money for your own needs?
Do you ever do a favor for someone even when you don't like that person or if you don't feel like doing that particular favor?
Do you practice self control in when you are faced with temptation to do things that are bad for your health, well-being, etc. or that would potentially harm others?
These are the situations/morals I'm talking about.
Not someone dragging you someplace you don't want to go to.
Do you ever FEEL immoral?
Sadie Lou asked: Do you give to charity when you don't seem to even have enough money for your own needs?
No.
Do you ever do a favor for someone even when you don't like that person or if you don't feel like doing that particular favor?
I'm certainly less likely to do a favour for someone I don't like etc..
Do you practice self control in when you are faced with temptation to do things that are bad for your health, well-being, etc. or that would potentially harm others?
Not always, no.
Do you ever FEEL immoral?
Interesting question. I've certainly felt guilty about things.. is that what you mean? Doing things that I felt was wrong - sometimes even when doing them... Of course at other times I've done things which I know are considered to be wrong and yet felt no guilt at all....
Well, since you admit to having felt guilt before, it goes without saying that you are aware there are other morals out there that you recognize but do not always adhere to.
That would support my claim that morality is not individual. We do not create or own moral standard by which we live by. We take into account, the morality of others and apply those to our standard.
When we don't live up to this Moral Law, we feel guilt and shame.
The fact that sometimes you do not feel guilty doesn't change the fact that what you did was immoral. It just means you were able to convince yourself not to dwell on it or explore the consequences of your actions.
Like I said, you didn't have to answer those questions I posed but since you did, I will say that it appears as though you ddo the *right* thing as long as YOU are comfortable with the results.
Jesus preached that it is good to go beyond your comfort zone to serve others. It teaches a person to be humble and less prideful.
Sadie Lou said: Well, since you admit to having felt guilt before, it goes without saying that you are aware there are other morals out there that you recognize but do not always adhere to.
Firstly I have felt guilt probably because I broke my own moral code not someone else's. I have caused pain to those I love & it made me feel guilty. It has nothing to do with breaking moral codes that I do not recognise. I have broken at least one moral code on numerous ocassions & felt (and still feel) not one ounce of guilt because of it.
Sadie Lou said: We do not create or own moral standard by which we live by. We take into account, the morality of others and apply those to our standard. When we don't live up to this Moral Law, we feel guilt and shame.
I don't agree.
Sadie Lou said: The fact that sometimes you do not feel guilty doesn't change the fact that what you did was immoral. It just means you were able to convince yourself not to dwell on it or explore the consequences of your actions.
Not true. Who is to say that my actions where immoral if I didn't think them so?
Sadie Lou also said: I will say that it appears as though you do the *right* thing as long as YOU are comfortable with the results.
I try & do the *right* thing that fits in with my understanding and appreciation of morality. I have no problem with some things that others may think are immoral for example. I don't particularly care what the majority view is on any particular moral issue. I'm well able enough to make my own mind up on those issues.
Of course we've moved on now to that perennial question: Where does Morality come from? I know that we have rather divergent ideas on this, so it should come as no surprise that we cannot agree on what is and what is not moral and exactly how people come to that decision.
I have felt guilty for doing something that I know was against someone elses moral code, even though it was absloutley the right & moral thing to do IMO, as i know I have caused them hurt & i prefer not to do that.
a specific example would be soem of the numerous disagreements myself & my mother have regarding childrearing. i have done things in fromt of her that I know she considers wrong & immoral. My morality says try not to upset your mother. But my higer morality says i should bring up my chld the way i believe correct. so I do the thing, the feel guilty that it had to be done in front of her!
If there is a universal morality - even a very minimal one, how come different cultures, countries & time periods have not agreed on it?
Not true. Who is to say that my actions were immoral if I didn't think them so?
...so says the serial killer.
...or the wife abuser.
...or the thief.
I'll say it again, your not feeling guilt is because you successfully reasoned the source of guilt away and you did not dwell on or examine the consequence of your actions.
ex.
I see a woman hitchhiking on the side of the road.
I have plenty of room in my car and the woman obviously is in dire need of a ride--it's raining out and I see a broken down car a mile up the road.
I'm going to be late for work (again) if I stop to pick her up.
I drive by and justify my actions by concluding that this woman could have tried to rob me or would have made me very late to work and I would have gotten in trouble.
Let's say I never find out that she just lived a block from where I work and that some man picked her up and she got in his car out of desperation. He took her to her house and tried to sexually assult her.
Were my actions immoral?
Just because I did not know the consequence of my actions? I'm not saying that I am responsible for the sins of the man that took advantage of her but I directly contributed to her desperation and could have helped her.
It's the same with giving to charity even if it looks like I'm not financially stable myself. We still honor our commitment to our charities and we have faith that God will bless our efforts--he ALWAYS does.
???
I don't know but I like to act on my first impulse rather than let my selfish inhibitions convince me otherwise. I can justify a multitude of sins if given enough time.
In what way is it moral to take food out of my children's mouths to put food in a strangers child mouth?
it depends on your definition of "financially stable" I suppose, but I vey rarely give money to charity, for a number of reasons, including that one!
and yes, I know my children are not starving, and won't die if they missed a meal. I still consider it immoral to deprive them for a stranger - even if the stranger may die due to my "selfishness".
Although I do always pick up hitch-hikers;-)
mrs aginoth--
Of course you make sure you are taking care of your own, first. For example, we give 10% of Dan's paycheck to various charities, however--this month, we gave that check to my sister and her boyfriend. They live like poor little church mice sometimes and they are having car problems.
Post a Comment