Moral Dilemna - how to solve it

[MithLuin]

Yovargas - I found your post most thought provoking....you bring up something which leads me to ask....

Do people who seriously engage in these type of games then act in a more moral way than those who do not engage in these type of games?

Are exercises like this akin to exercise or lifting weights to make one stronger and more fit in an ethical or moral sense?

Or is this an activity for its own ends without any practical carry over?

There is more to it than just 'thinking about it' in advance, though. To do something truly heroic and take the moral high ground in a difficult, dangerous situation...you have to make a habit of uncompromisingly taking the moral high ground in non-threatening, easy situations. If you can't pass the simple tests, you won't pass the hard ones, either. You aren't going to give your life for someone if you wouldn't even give up your parking space for them.

There is more to this scenario than an intellectual exercise - things like courage and conviction come into play. How much do you just do as you are told? How much do you freeze up and do nothing at all, letting the terrorists make all the decisions? People do act differently when there is a gun in their face. How opposed to killing are you? Is it something you'd rather not do, or is it something you literally can/will not do? Is it something you will do to save others, but not save yourself? Will you have the wherewithall to compose that moving speech on the spot that convinces the terrorist he wants to "go home and rethink his life"?

I agree with Padme that we don't know what we will do until, well, it happens. But we can know what we should do, or would like to think we'd do, etc. Thinking about what to do in a tough circumstance is helpful, but not always...good preparation for real life. You need more than just thoughts to sustain you. You need good habits of thinking of others and genuine concern for them.

We never know what will happen, and the only person whose actions we have any control over is...ourself.

[axordil]

Real dilemmas don't have solutions, by definition. Just sayin'.

My issue with abstract moral scenarios is that they don't correspond as well to real life moral scenarios as one might think, even if the situations are superficially cognate. Real life is composed of specifics, any one of which may, in practice, change the answer to the question. Abstract scenarios like this reveal only how one responds to abstract scenarios like this.

I actually don't agree with the idea that heroism is based on a lifetime of passing simple moral tests leading to the mindset needed to pass a real, hard one. I think it's a matter of the specifics of a situation aligning in such a way as to make being heroic possible, and then someone filling that need, for whatever reason. It's possible to be a moral genius and a hero, but it's also possible to be a moral genius and cause a lot of pain and suffering, or to be a moral reprobate and save the day despite one's failings, because things just work out that way. Bad things happen to good people, and vice versa.

It may not be deeply satisfying or fair, but if you read the fine print in utero, there was nothing about fairness in the contract.

[yovargas]

It's no different than a lot of education we get, IMO. I, for example, had to take Calculus 1, 2, & 3 in order to get my Computer Science degree. But the chances that I would ever have needed calculus in my real life job were pretty slim (only a few specific computer science related jobs would require calc, and almost none would require level 3 calc). Does that make those classes worthless to me? Absolutely not! It's about sharpening my mental tools, pushing and improving my logic and problem-solving skills, to better understand the nature of abstract thought, ect. I think this sort of moral philosophy game accomplishes the same thing - push your mind to grapple with the most difficult and "advanced" moral problems one could face - not as practice for the absurd possibility of ever encountering this terrorist but to sharpen and better understand your moral views in general.

[axordil]

to sharpen and better understand your moral views in general

Or perhaps to learn about the nature of moral questions in general, yes. They aren't devoid of merit, in the right context. For example, if one were to juxtapose this question with one where the putative terrorist was asking you to punch someone, else he would punch nine, or steal from a person, else he would steal from nine...

[Primula Baggins]

It's funny, but with something less fraught than murder on the line, the answer suddenly seems quite clear to me: the bad guy is responsible for his actions, and I am responsible for mine, so I am not going to punch anyone.

[River]

I'd punch the terrorist but I'm in a punchy mood today.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

Forgive me for saying this so sharply, but these kind of moral puzzles are meaningless. Saying that this is what I would do when faced with this situation doesn't mean that it is what I would actually do when faced with the situation. Only facing the situation itself would actually provide any kind of "moral test".

[yovargas]

Again, V-man, I don't think the purpose is to prepare for some crazy situation like this but to delve into the nature of our views of morality itself. If one seriously ponders the situation and doesn't just dismiss it as some silly game, it forces you to ponder your views on life, death, murder, culpability, ect.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I honestly don't think that it does. It is simply too abstract.

Edit to add: That is, of course, only my opinion.

[Primula Baggins]

I think I see what Voronwë means. Just about any hard or frightening or intense situation I've ever faced has been completely unlike what I would have expected, if I'd imagined it beforehand (and sometimes I had, because it was something I was looking forward to—getting married, for example). Rehearsing mentally didn't help in any situation.

I could actually see this kind of pre-situation decision being a bad thing. In a position of real danger, sometimes it's best to rely on gut instinct.

[Frelga]

V, you'll notice that the question is not "what would you do?" but "what is the moral thing to do?" The honest answer to the first is probably "wet my pants."

Prim, I agree. I do think puzzles like that help us recognize where our gut feelings come from.

[MithLuin]

I do think it has a value for deepening an understanding of morality, though not much value for preparing you to face a dilemma.

The proper preparation is to pray, "Dear Lord, do not let me be put to the test." And not spend too much time thinking about terrorists....

"Finally, brothers, whatever is true, whatever is noble, whatever is right, whatever is pure, whatever is lovely, whatever is admirable—if anything is excellent or praiseworthy—think about such things." Philippeans 4:8


Funny you brought up math, though. One of my college calculus professor's would often start out problems by saying, "If a crazed terrorist came up to you on the street and put a gun to your head and asked you...(fill in the random mundane math problem)..." He did this so often that students would joke about coming in one day in a ski mask with a toy gun and threatening him in the middle of class. I don't recall anyone actually doing that, of course.... [This was all pre-9/11 - I don't know if he still does that.]

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I stand by my original statement that there is no "correct" moral answer to this hypotetical puzzle.

[River]

Wow Mith. The worst I ever got from any instructor was "If you got pulled out of bed at 3 am, could you do it?"

For some reason, that was a repeated refrain from everyone, from my aikido instructor to my university professors to my EMT instructor (and, in the latter case, it was more than a cute, cliched hypothetical).

[axordil]

It's funny, but with something less fraught than murder on the line, the answer suddenly seems quite clear to me: the bad guy is responsible for his actions, and I am responsible for mine, so I am not going to punch anyone.

What if it's asymmetrical? And in life it usually is...say, if you don't punch someone, the terrorist will break their leg. Or if you don't break their leg, the terrorist will shoot them.

I do think the larger constellation of these questions can have a use in showing how we make moral decisions.

[Folca]

Hmm. The interesting thing I see here is the resistance to considering the situation. It is extreme, but I don't think it lacks in value. And, there is a flaw in the belief of waiting until something happens and go with gut instinct.

In my line of employment, we are trained to use when/then thinking. Note it is not if/then, but when/then. We cannot afford to hope or wish bad things won't happen. Such acts of denial only serve to ensure failure. The purpose for such mental exercises is to improve your chances of acting in a tactically effective manner. Relying on a gut action alone to react to a situation one is totally unprepared for has been shown to increase one's chances of failure. The chances of facing such a situation, contextual to this scenario or not, are very unlikely, but then tell that to the thousands of men, women and children over the last fifty years who have found themselves hostage in schools, hotels, airplanes...

As for morality, here is how I see things: when someone preys upon another, purposefully targeting another human with suffering of any kind, they have lost any moral standing, period. At that point, a victim is ENTITLED act against the predator to end the inappropriate behavior. However, only the predator should be targeted, because the predator is the source of the problem.

Hence: If a predator intends murder, any action up to killing that predator is taking the moral high ground. There is nothing to prevent a predator from future offenses against other victims unless someone acts at the time the current offense is intended. Failure to act if given the opportunity is saying, " I don't care who else suffers just as long as I don't."

One consideration of suicide being the answer. What good can a person accomplish if they check out instead of facing the situation with the remaining victims. Ten are stronger than nine, so abandoning the others in the situation is not a viable solution because it does not contribute to the success of the group. For that matter, shooting one to save the others only means no one will ever trust you with anything ever again. NEVER.

Wampus and those who advocate action against the terrorists are correct. I don't advocate killing at the slightest provocation, but when forced to act, act. The only person who should suffer violence in this scenario is the terrorist, because he created the scenario and he it is his responsiblity to suffer the full consequences.

If I still have my own weapon, the terrorist drops. Otherwise, volunteer to be the terrorist's tool to get a weapon or within proximity of them to end the scenario. It is my duty to act and protect the innocent from predators.

For those who don't understand why I feel the way I do, it would help to read the essay located at the following website, if you want to take the time. http://www.arkansaslawman.com/node/95

[Impenitent]

I'm with Vinnie on this; it really doesn't matter what answer one comes up with when faced with a theoretical dilemma because one's actions when faced with the reality are unpredictable and may have very little to do with what one hopes one would do or what one has practiced in theory.

Adrenaline, pain, fear, reflex action, reading the moment, etc have such a big influence on behaviour.

The first things I thought of when reading the first post were two personal experiences.

The first occurred when I was about 16, on a weekend trek through a mountainous terrain (okay, hilly; I concede; I was in Australia, after all) and we had to cross the same river multiple times due to its meandering course. We camped overnight and the heavens opened up, flooding the site, so the next day's hike back to our starting point became very treacherous as the river had swollen. After the first crossing, where we nearly lost one of the smallest hikers to the current (erm... that was me), we decided not to risk crossing again and we followed the river, pathless and along very steep, wooded, muddy slopes. This took three times as long and we had to hike deep into the night, wet, cold and without lights. It was scary and dangerous (and when I think about it I'm not sure why we didn't just find some flat ground and sit it out around a fire, but that's how it went). So during this walk, the person in front of me lost his footing and, if not for me putting out a judicious hand, may well have fallen down the steep bank and injured himself. This caused me to lose my cool, and I ranted and screamed about the irresponsibility of the leaders and the stupidity of bashing through bush in darkness, mud and treacherous terrain etc. I was very embarrassed about it afterwards because I tend to be such a calm, cool, quiet person - my hysteria surprised everybody.

Second situation: I took a six-week women's self-defence course about ten years ago. The instructors drummed into us that the first course of action is to avoid the possibility of needing to defend ones self. The second course of action is to evade and get away. The third course of action is to use the techniques learnt to disengage from an attacker and then get away. What one shouldn't do is attempt to take on and fight the attacker - On the last night of the course, we were tested. One of our instructors donned a helmet and hid out in the park next door and one by one, we went out into the park to be "attacked". I walked out in the appropriate manner ("look like you have a purpose, don't dawdle"), my instructor came from behind, placed me in a headlock, I used the techniques taught to disengage...and then I kicked him in the shin and kicked his legs from under him, turned around and kicked him repeatedly in the head while he was down! I didn't run away, which I was so sure I would do. I don't know who was more shocked by my reaction. Again I was very embarrassed (and very apologetic).

In both those situations I responded in precisely opposite the way I would have hoped to respond.

I think that the flipside of this is that this is how heroes are created, too. They don't plan it, or do the "right" thing or the logical thing; they just respond to the situation in which they are in and by serendipity, it is precisely the correct response (unlike mine).

[Folca]

No, I don't think heroes succeed on serendipity very often, except in literature. Your most successful heroes, especially in military history and severely challenging situations are the products of preparation, mental, physical and emotional. Success is based on a mindset combined with experiences that facilitate that success. Sgt. Alvin York succeed with a plan, not by just "winging it."

Personal experiences illustrate my point. Once, a brother errantly threw a knife and I watched as it rotated in the air on a collision course with my face at eye level. No panic, no wild ducking and screaming, I moved my head out of the way. I watched the knife go past my face and imbed itself in the wall directly behind me. I removed the knife from the wall, obtained the sheath from my brother and he left without a mean word from me. There was no malice in the act, therefore no aggression towards him by me. Training and a mindset of proactive behavior instead of just hoping for the best made the difference.

Two years later I should have been killed in a head on collision. I was driving a gutless vehicle with no power steering in a bad rainstorm and turned onto a two lane highway when a moving truck attempted to pass another moving truck just before the intersection after I had made my turn. Neither truck made any effort to slow down or manuver and if they were traveling the speed limit they were moving at 55mph and were approximately fifty to sixty yards away. I floored my vehicle because my only escape route was the barrow pit and the only way to obtain manuverability in the vehicle I was driving was to play chicken for a second and dive into the barrow pit as they barely missed me. I wasn't just winging it and hoping for the best. I acted in full cognizance of what needed to be done and how best to accomplish it.

Two years after that I was illegally detained in a house by four intoxicated individuals who took a disliking to me and the two individuals in my company. Using the street psychology taught to me by an instructor and a predetermined response that I had practiced in my mind repeatedly I negotiated our release. The other two in my company made absolutely no effort to assist because they, like most people, preferred to "hope" things like that would never happen to them. The reason there was no violence that time was preparation: I had in my possession a large Mag light flashlight because I was out at night, a mindset and predetermined response to a situation similar to the one I ended up in. Had violence been incited by the other four, I had already determined the order of who was to be dealt with first, second and so on in addition to the escape route I intended on defending while the other two escaped, as I believed they were of no use to me in the situation.

When I was a rookie in a correctional facility I was surrounded by a group of inmates who I knew did not like me and I sensed were on the verge of violence. I utilized the street psychology taught to me by instructors both in and out of law enforcement and after a fifteen minute debate between my lone self and over thirty non compliant indidviduals exited without any violence then or later.

I have plenty of other examples, but the point is there would be no real success without something better than hoping for some serendipitous intervention. Those are the people that get "owned" by the situation and never make it to the hero status. Nothing I ever do will count as heroic in our society's terminology, but I certainly cannot count on luck alone to save me, or anyone around me. Any one of these situations could have turned out very badly, even having done my very best to overcome the situations. Such is life.

[axordil]

Situational conditioning and moral conditioning are not the same, though. One can be trained to react quickly and decisively, even without conscious thought, in situations that require it. That's not the same as debating whether the quick and decisive action is ethically or morally correct, which is really the only thing the original question touches on. It's not presented as a "what is the most effective way to get out of this" situation, but an ethical and moral problem.

[Primula Baggins]

And, most people don't have any kind of elaborate training for dealing with the unexpected, so gut instinct is really all we've got.