Is there a moral difference between killing and letting die? If so, are we morally obligated to donate towards relief for famine, AIDS relief, and such?
Killing is taking someone's life purposely in that sense..BUT there is a difference between killing someone in the bad sense and then taking a life to defend oneself...
I mean what is your version of "letting" someone vs. "killing" someone??
The question lies within the question.
This little question might turn into a major debate that can be applied in too many ways. Certainly the question needs to be more specific.
To answer if we are morally obligated to give to the causes that could help such as listed in the post above...I don't know...I think it depends on the person. I mean, can they help financially? Some people live week to week...are these people then morally obligated to help others when they can barely make it themselves??
I can take this question into so many different ways based on my above statement. I mean lets face it, the middle class are getting hurt with the prices of things and the rich are getting richer from the middle class and poor. Are the rich morally obligated to help? Perhaps...and some rich people do help, but then when a rich person asks for help from the commoners, then what? It comes back to the same question as stated. Can the middle class and middle poor really help and if not are they to be "morally punished?"
Hmm....
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
"Killing" is active and "letting die" is passive. Two very different actions.
I have both killed and let people die. I consider my self an expert in this matter.
Damn... That sound harsh.
Ooh-rah
4 years as a scout sniper in the USMC.
21 months in Iraq in two tours.
Best job in the world. (Sitting around with an M40A3)
Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother
Holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky crying
Why, oh why?
'cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
Well, the questions were posed in a generic form on purpose as we can apply them to various situations, but the question becomes more difficult with each answer.
Examples (None of which are not my own, a couple which may seem a stretch of the imagination):
If there is a small child drowning in a pool/pond and we are capable of saving that childs life, are we morally obligated to save them? Are we more obligated than those who are farther? Are we less obligated than those who are closer?
If someone is kidnapped and when they wake up they are hooked up to a famous violinist through machines that are essentially allowing the violinist to use their kidneys while a donor is found. If you detach the violinist dies. Is that person obligated to remain hooked up?
Imagine there's a place called the "Pleasure Palace" and inside there is every imaginable luxury and comfort imaginable. The only catch is that there is a trap door that opens once a day and if you fall through that door, you then receive an implant that essentially remotely allows someone else to use your kidneys. Again if you detach, the person dies. Are you then obligated to keep the implant?
I know those last two are far off the charts and almost seem like they belong in a sci-fi book, and as I said, they're not mine. They might help one to see that the issue of killing vs. letting die is not as black and white as it may seem. If I'm off of my rocker, then I can accept that. It just seems to me that one is no better or worse than the other, in any instance. Even when it may seem an open and shut case, when you apply that logic to other scenarios, it usually doesn't mesh well. I'll be back to provide more later, I've got some work to do.
Letting die isn't an action. it is a lack of action and there for it isn't active, its passive.
Ooh-rah
4 years as a scout sniper in the USMC.
21 months in Iraq in two tours.
Best job in the world. (Sitting around with an M40A3)
Don't look at me like
I am a monster
Frown out your one face
But with the other
Stare like a junkie
Into the TV
Stare like a zombie
While the mother
Holds her child
Watches him die
Hands to the sky crying
Why, oh why?
'cause I need to watch things die
From a distance
If someone is walking down the street and they see another person choking or whatever you gotta help them out. Not only is that the case from a legal perspective I think morally we have an obligation.
If it's an illness I think it's up to the individual or family if they are a vegetable.
RoyalPITA said this in post #4 : If there is a small child drowning in a pool/pond and we are capable of saving that childs life, are we morally obligated to save them? Are we more obligated than those who are farther? Are we less obligated than those who are closer?
Im not sure if this is a serious question or just a really bad example. I mean if a small child is drowning in a pool, my thought wouldnt be am I morally obligated to save them...I just would jump in and do it. I wouldnt waste time thinking that a person closer to them should be doing it. I would just hope that they would try as would I. If someone had to apply a thought instead of a normal reaction, then there is something wrong. This is after all, a drowning child. I would hope that anyone would have these type of values.
If someone is kidnapped and when they wake up they are hooked up to a famous violinist through machines that are essentially allowing the violinist to use their kidneys while a donor is found. If you detach the violinist dies. Is that person obligated to remain hooked up?
Imagine there's a place called the "Pleasure Palace" and inside there is every imaginable luxury and comfort imaginable. The only catch is that there is a trap door that opens once a day and if you fall through that door, you then receive an implant that essentially remotely allows someone else to use your kidneys. Again if you detach, the person dies. Are you then obligated to keep the implant?
I know those last two are far off the charts and almost seem like they belong in a sci-fi book, and as I said, they're not mine. They might help one to see that the issue of killing vs. letting die is not as black and white as it may seem. If I'm off of my rocker, then I can accept that. It just seems to me that one is no better or worse than the other, in any instance. Even when it may seem an open and shut case, when you apply that logic to other scenarios, it usually doesn't mesh well. I'll be back to provide more later, I've got some work to do.
I agree...I mean with the sci-fi reasoning. First off, one could apply that if one were kidnapped and hooked to a famous violinist, one still has to think that by unhooking oneself that they are in essence defending themself for they werent asked to be there in the first place. So I apply this to my original post that taking a life to defend oneself is not a bad thing. Lets face it, if someone needs a kidney, there are hospitals for these things. I dont think that someone is obligated to give a body part to anyone. That is a choice and not a moral obligation.
The second example is so far off the wall that I dont see how anyone could reasonably debate it or answer it.
I think a more realistic example is necessary in order to really answer any question.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
USMC_Sniper said this in post #3 : "Killing" is active and "letting die" is passive. Two very different actions.
I have both killed and let people die. I consider my self an expert in this matter.
Damn... That sound harsh.
Understandable considering what you do for a living.
BUT, I have to ask anyway...the killing part, is a given for obvious reasons...but in what capacity did you let someone die? I mean did it fall under the example of...say... letting a small child drown (not my example) or did it fall under my original post thought of letting someone die in order to save your own life?
To me, there is a HUGE difference between letting someone die to save one's life or letting someone die because one didn't have the values to help another or to at least try to help.
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
Okay, I'm beginning to sense you pulling away from me mystic. None of the examples I gave were to be regarded in a literall sense. All of the arguments were actual arguments put forth by modern philosophers. I changed the second two a bit to fit the poll, but they were both arguments about abortion, which I have no desire to argue in this thread. Mainly because as a man, it's a decision I'll never have to make.
Obviously if there was a drowning child one ought to save them. I would without a doubt and without hesitation. If you take a moment and look at it from a philosophical stance, the question is "Are we guilty of anything if we don't save the child?" Because when you put this on a far greater scale, if we are indeed morally obligated to save the child, and if we would be guilty of anything for not saving the child, then we would definitely be morally obligated to help with the issues of famine and AIDS, not just in Africa, but throughout the world.
Both of the kidney questions were, as I said, arguments about abortion. If you add to the story that you had to remain attached for nine months, it makes more sense. The argument about the violinist was to indicate that you had been forced into the situation aka rape. The "Pleasure Palace" was more of an argument about responsibility of pregnancy. Basically, if you choose to have sex, there is the (No matter how vague or likely) possibility of pregnancy, and at that point when does a person have a moral obligation to sustain that life?
I changed them and applied them to this scenario, becuase I think they open a rich and interesting dialogue about what our obligations to help others is.
The question of the child drowning was put forth by Peter Singer, in an article he publised in the spring of 1972 regarding the famine in East Bengal.
The Famous Violinist thought experiment was published by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971 pertaining to ethics/morality of abortion. Wikipedia has more information on this and the author.
The "Pleasure Palace" is a modification of the Famous Violinist and I'm having a bit of trouble finding the author (Although it may be Thomson herself) it can be found by google, however, if you wish, I can type it out here. (I'm not sure if there would be any legal issues with that.) However, if you're going to google it, type in the Kidney Liberation Oranization argument. As you can imagine... most of what will come up won't have anything to do with philosophy.
Please understand, that by no means do I believe someone would be without guilt for watching a child drown. I'm taking a philosophy class, it's the first class I've taken in 10 years. I just think it's a fascinating topic to discuss, because a lot of people will agree that we have to, we are morally as well as legally obligated to save that child, yet think there is no moral relevance when it comes to charity. When I added the issue of distance from the child, again on a grand scale, many people think it is the burden of those who are from the region as well as those more financially sound to help. That's all.
RoyalPITA said this in post #11 : Okay, I'm beginning to sense you pulling away from me mystic. None of the examples I gave were to be regarded in a literall sense. All of the arguments were actual arguments put forth by modern philosophers. I changed the second two a bit to fit the poll, but they were both arguments about abortion, which I have no desire to argue in this thread. Mainly because as a man, it's a decision I'll never have to make.
Okay...I get that. I didn't mean to pull away from you though...I just got a bit confused over the child drowning. With what I do for a living though, I put forth a lot of thought into anything set before me. I think about it and then pull it apart in order to get to the answer.
Obviously if there was a drowning child one ought to save them. I would without a doubt and without hesitation. If you take a moment and look at it from a philosophical stance, the question is "Are we guilty of anything if we don't save the child?" Because when you put this on a far greater scale, if we are indeed morally obligated to save the child, and if we would be guilty of anything for not saving the child, then we would definitely be morally obligated to help with the issues of famine and AIDS, not just in Africa, but throughout the world.
Okay...well this question is set forth perhaps a little differently. Maybe not in meaning but in words...its more clear of waht you are asking. In that case (of the drowning), if someone has the abilities and does not save the child, then I think there is something missing from that person, morally speaking. If someone cannot swim and they are the only ones around, is it right for 2 to die instead of 1? Is someone morally wrong if they themselves cannot swim??
However, as I stated in the first post, how can one save a child throughout the world if they do not have the means to do so financially? Is one to be morally punished because one cannot afford to do anything?
Both of the kidney questions were, as I said, arguments about abortion. If you add to the story that you had to remain attached for nine months, it makes more sense. The argument about the violinist was to indicate that you had been forced into the situation aka rape. The "Pleasure Palace" was more of an argument about responsibility of pregnancy. Basically, if you choose to have sex, there is the (No matter how vague or likely) possibility of pregnancy, and at that point when does a person have a moral obligation to sustain that life?
MMmmm...well, you got me on this one. Still, however, I think it depends on the woman. If she were raped, is it wrong if she does not have it in her mentally to have a child she did not ask for? Is it really wrong to abort it if she were raped? I have to say that this falls on the woman and if she can mentally handle it. I mean, I dont think anyone can say she is morally wrong if she chooses to abort it, for others are not in her situation. Those who are or were in her situation, may also have different views as well, but are they in a position to judge her in the moral sense? I wouldn't think so.
I changed them and applied them to this scenario, becuase I think they open a rich and interesting dialogue about what our obligations to help others is.
The question of the child drowning was put forth by Peter Singer, in an article he publised in the spring of 1972 regarding the famine in East Bengal.
The Famous Violinist thought experiment was published by Judith Jarvis Thomson in 1971 pertaining to ethics/morality of abortion. Wikipedia has more information on this and the author.
The "Pleasure Palace" is a modification of the Famous Violinist and I'm having a bit of trouble finding the author (Although it may be Thomson herself) it can be found by google, however, if you wish, I can type it out here. (I'm not sure if there would be any legal issues with that.) However, if you're going to google it, type in the Kidney Liberation Oranization argument. As you can imagine... most of what will come up won't have anything to do with philosophy.
Please understand, that by no means do I believe someone would be without guilt for watching a child drown. I'm taking a philosophy class, it's the first class I've taken in 10 years. I just think it's a fascinating topic to discuss, because a lot of people will agree that we have to, we are morally as well as legally obligated to save that child, yet think there is no moral relevance when it comes to charity. DENICE FELDER When I added the issue of distance from the child, again on a grand scale, many people think it is the burden of those who are from the region as well as those more financially sound to help. That's all.
I took a philosophy class as well. We took more of our time basing our discussions on religion more so than actual philosophers. I dont know why. I think we got on a tangent about religion and it just took over the class. Anyhow, overall, I agree with you regarding this statement: "there is no moral relevance when it comes to charity."
Overall...I love that you opened up this type of discussion. Its nice to discuss deep thinking issues!!
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
The difference between the need to save a child and the need to save thousands dying of AIDS is the way guilt works.
If you don't save a drowning child the guilt lies with you alone, a burden many people would feel they would not be able to cope with. If you don't help those dying of AIDS the guilt is shared amongst millions and therefore lighter. We can hide behind our collective responsibility, if there is such a thing.
Same goes for the moral difference between killing and allowing people to die. Killing is individual and therefore morally there is nowhere to hide. Allowing many people to die is a shared responsibility and so lighter. Allowing a drowning child to die would in my guess be morally as damaging to the individual involved as having to kill someone.
h@ts said this in post #13 : The difference between the need to save a child and the need to save thousands dying of AIDS is the way guilt works.
If you don't save a drowning child the guilt lies with you alone, a burden many people would feel they would not be able to cope with. If you don't help those dying of AIDS the guilt is shared amongst millions and therefore lighter. We can hide behind our collective responsibility, if there is such a thing.
Same goes for the moral difference between killing and allowing people to die. Killing is individual and therefore morally there is nowhere to hide. Allowing many people to die is a shared responsibility and so lighter. Allowing a drowning child to die would in my guess be morally as damaging to the individual involved as having to kill someone.
Im not sure that you are looking at it far enough though. I mean its easy to say millions should feel guilty (though lighter) if we dont help AIDS victims. In the bigger picture however, it needs to be broken down. I mean how can you say that "'we'" can hide behind our collective responsibility" if in reality there are just some who cannot help even if they wanted to. Not everyone has the smarts to medically help or have the money to financially help. The question is are they to feel guilty??
As for killing vs. letting in you above statement...well, did you not just make that black and white? I mean, what about the breakdown of why one killed? Did they kill to save their own life? And if so...why should they feel guilty about that? I wouldnt feel guilty if I killed someone who tried to kill me and I acted in self-defense.
So...as I said...the original question isnt black and white...there are more colors to it...and there is much more to say then somone should feel guilty as an individual or as a group.
IMO
Of course thats just my opinion....I could be wrong. (Dennis Miller)
"You might be the toughest little whacker. . .but in my world, you're about as worrisome as a cloudy day." (Dutch Dooley)
mystic said this in post #14 :
Im not sure that you are looking at it far enough though. I mean its easy to say millions should feel guilty (though lighter) if we dont help AIDS victims.
I didn't say people "should" feel guilty. I said people do feel guilty. We feel guilty because we know we've stopped the massive deaths from AIDS in the West but have not done the same in the developing world. That knowledge leads to some level of guilt, as is the guilt most people feel with the knowledge that we live affluently in the West while millions around the world starve to death every year.
I still say for most people it is easier to live with the guilt of starving millions than it would be to live with the guilt of doing nothing if a child drowned in front of you. I can only put that down to the fact that guilt shared is easier to live with.
quote:
in reality there are just some who cannot help even if they wanted to. Not everyone has the smarts to medically help or have the money to financially help. The question is are they to feel guilty??
Guilt is just an emotion. You either feel it or you don't. We know we have the drugs to fight AIDS. We know we have the money and resources to feed everyone in the world. Realpolitik means we don't. We can't hide from what we know, but we can make excuses for doing nothing. I'm not moralising, that's just the way we are.
quote:
Did they kill to save their own life? And if so...why should they feel guilty about that? I wouldnt feel guilty if I killed someone who tried to kill me and I acted in self-defense.
Like I said, you don't choose to feel guilty, you just do or you don't. Most cultures are morally okay with killing in self-defence so in that situation guilt isn't something society will try to pin on you.
05-03-2007 05:54 PM
None of the examples I gave were to be regarded in a literall sense. All of the arguments were actual arguments put forth by modern philosophers. I changed the second two a bit to fit the poll, but they were both arguments about abortion, which I have no desire to argue in this thread. Mainly because as a man, it's a decision I'll never have to make. 
