Morality: Right or Wrong?

[Baya]

Alright. I know this is a question that has attacked your minds at one point or another. Morality: Right, or wrong?

Now I'm just going to start off by defining morality via dictionary.com

Morality: conformity to the rules of right conduct; moral or virtuous conduct.

Now comes the question of what is moral? What is virtue? Ergo, what is right or wrong?

Now I'm going to bring up a situation, and I want honest answers. If there are 10 people on a bridge, and 1 of them weighs alot [lets say he's a giant], and the bridge can only support so much. It begins to break, and the only way to save 9 out of 10 of the people, is to push the giant off the bridge. Now here is the moral core of this issue. Is it right to murder 1, to save 9 others?

Now I really want you to think about it. You don't know WHO the 9 other people are. They can be rapists, murders, sex offenders, and con artists, and that one man can be the only one with any sense of good in his life. Now lets turn that around. What if that giant man was a criminal. Is it more moral to kill him to save the others, with added rationale that he is a criminal and therefore his life means less than that of others?

[KopsTheTerminator]

That's a really tricky question... I dunno how to answer. Killing anyone is immoral, to me at least... but in that situation, if the giant isn't killed, they will all die. =/ I dunno, it's not right but I believe it's better if at least 9 out of 10 are saved. Everyone dying is even worse.

I don't believe that the giant's life would mean less than the rest, if he was a criminal. He's still alive and concious. Same with the other 9. I believe the most "moral" thing to do in that situation is to just let it break. It's sad, but it's the most "moral" solution I can find. (However, I highly doubt that any of them would follow their morals in such a situation. When we're in danger, we usually follow our instinct to save ourselves and not our morals, sadly.)

The situation would get even trickier if the 9 people were friends... You'd be saving your friends and yourself, but you'd have to kill a stranger to do so, so it would really depend on your point of view. (I hate to say it, but I'd much rather save my friends than have everyone killed... and I'm sure many people would, too. It's not right to kill someone, but it's right to save your friends.)

To be honest, it really depends on what one's morals are. Some people have different morals, I dunno.

[Azdgari]

I think all those other variables are fairly meaningless, unless all of the other nine people have committed such awful crimes that their lives really have lost value (I.E. killing multiple people unrepentantly). Sacrificing one so that nine can live is pretty straightforward. It's tough, but ultimately it's the way it has to be.

It's made easier by the fact that it's not one or the other. It's everyone dies, or one person dies. The giant is doomed no matter what happens, so what kind of morals could you have that say "everyone should die instead of only one person?" =3

[FlipMode]

Well, I say off with the giant "Down ya go!" and all push him off.
Because for exactly the reason Az already explained. I mean that is not a case of right or wrong, that is a case of all die or one die, and to be honest if he is a nice a guy as you say he is, then he should have no problem volunteering. lol and if he is a criminal, then well you all die or 1 dies, I know which numbers I would rather have, sometimes you just only have the option of saving as many people as you can.

A better situation would be something like - your friend commits a burglary, and you know it was him and he asks you not to tell anyone. It is wrong not to, but do you keep to your word or dob him in to the coppers? Also, if at first you choose not to snitch, what happens then if a £/$/€/¥5000 was put out for information leading to his arrest. And the award money goes up each day, at what point do you cave in and tell on him, or do you still not at all?

[Baya]

I wouldn't really care. I'm not the type to tattle, but if they get caught I won't defend them either. C:

It's only illegal if you get caught C:

[KopaLeo]

I think the world is amoral(check this word out if unsure, it's different from "immoral"). Moral is just convenient inventions, which works only under certain conditions. Like the current liberalism works only in a stable high-density society, maybe some else way of life also support it, but certainly not all. And the kinds of life which don't support it is not intrinsically "unprogressive", because progressiveness is not defined in nature. Nature, has no direction. Some people hail life as the "fulfillment" of the universe, it's just arrogant. And to quote Zhuangzi, "All men do not agree in counting the same thing to be right, but every one maintains his own view to be right." Moral is flexible and highly dependent on the conditions. I completely disagree with moral absolutism.


OK, enough of my personal rants, as for your problem, I knew it is from the Justice: What's the Right Thing to Do? course. I believe I would push that fat guy, because I live in the human society, and the current human society runs very much on utilitarianism, and I can benefit from the existence of the current human society, so I will support utilitarianism by pushing that fat guy, and by such support the current human society, and by such benefit me.

[Baya]

^ You are a great human being. Yes, I did get it from that, and I didn't know anyone else here did! God, it's so awesome, isn't it? I love the professor!

But I'm more of a Machiavellian thinker when it comes to justice, politics, morals and virtue. As a person, I'm a very nice guy. I hold doors for people, I keep them happy and I do the best that I can do at my job. Now, should I get into politics, democracy wouldn't be something I want to sponsor. Democracy is the rule of the majority, and people think that is so moral. However, what if the majority votes on exterminating a minority? Because its the will of many, does that make it moral? Does that make it ok to mass slaughter a certain race or religious group because the majority approve of it?

[Azdgari]

Democracy operates on the belief that the majority of the people are in fact good people. And that, for the most part, seems to work. ;3

Arguments that morals are just societal tendencies have never interested me. The most basic moral is to, essentially, help your fellows and live. This isn't societal, it's instinctive, borne of our time as cavemen working together to survive, and it's replicated all throughout nature, and in nature's very existence.

[Baya]

But thats not so much morality, as it is instinct. What you do against your instincts is morality, such as helping someone who's not connected to you what so ever, or killing for the sake of punishment and control.

[KopaLeo]

No, morality are mostly ESS(Evolutionarily stable strategy http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolutiona ... e_strategy). "Helping someone who's not connected to you what so ever" is also your instinct, because in the past people live in small tribes, and most people you know will be around and help you back. Living in such a situation as you will meet a million people you never know is too new for our moral instincts to modify. "Killing for the sake of punishment and control" is more about self-protection than morality.

If life in embedded with any morality, it is already stated in The Selfish Gene, that, to live on and have good offspring.