Morality: Stealing to Feed your Children

What about that one life you took away, is he/she unimportant? What if it was you?

How can consent be irrelevant when someones life is question? And the value of life cannot be measured. Here is a real example. In the past this particular car company (you'll have to forgive me i can't remember its name), started developing its new model in which the engine was placed at the back rather than the front. After production was completed they had realised that their design had a major flaw. In that a collision from the rear could cause the car's engine to explode and obviously kill or seriously harm the driver and passengers.

But the company decided that recalling all the casr and installing an extra protective metal sheet would be too costly and had calculated through the average number collisions that happen annually that the cost of lawsuits would be significantly lower than recalling all their cars. Would say that the company directors acted immorally by putting people's life in danger all for the sake of their profit margins?

Also the questions are getting worse because denying that their is such a thing as objective morality only causes these problems to arise? After all is isn't racism, homophobia, misogyny, pedophilia just a difference of opinion ?

I'd disagree because torture is worse than a quick death, no matter how many people you could possibly save. It'd be different if the person you were to torture was a muderer/rapist/child molester.

I say this because the pain experienced by the 1 child would be greater and last for longer than the painless death of the 1000 children.

He or she is less important than the thousand, yes.

Making it personal doesn't work as no one is able to be fully rational when they have a personal interest in the scenario. But I don't deserve to live anymore than a thousand other people do.

Aside from the other babies in a big group (i.e. the thousand), individually they are all the same worth.

Murder isn't justified.

Yes, individually. But the thousand weighted against one? They don't add up.

Just saying that doesn't make it true.

Out of interest, how would you decide the criteria for the killing of the one baby?

What? As in, when do I think it would be acceptable, or how would it actually be decided?

How it would be decided/which factors are acceptable

It's not factors as such, more just how many lives are on each side of the scale.

If it were 1 v. 50, how would you know how to single out that one baby?

I agree it's the most rational way, but I still think it's wrong to decide one life is worth less.

You said above if you had a personal interest and pointed out rationality, so it would be more difficult to decide. Exactly - so treat others how you'd like to be treated. No-one deserves to die for no reason, unless they agree/want to die.

Oh, that's different as I have to make the decision as to which baby dies. In the scenario I was talking about, it was rather predetermined - one specific baby v other specific babies. Personal involvement makes the decision more difficult.

Well, would it be better to let the majority die? How is that any better? How is that not "wrong"?

It's not for no reason if it's saving others.

I agree with you in principle, but I just thought - what if the full scenario is that you're being held at gunpoint by a mobster. In front of a crowd he tells you to shoot one child, and then the other 50 children will be free to go. Assuming the mobster will also be free to go without ramification, is it still the more moral option to bow in the face of oppression, even if the numbers suggest it would be?
Personally I would probably still shoot the single child, but I thought the scenario throws an interesting shade of grey into the debate, whether there's additional 'moralistic' factors that would weigh in on the decision.

Now that's interesting as it's an entirely separate and much more multi-faceted scenario. Good!

Okay. Well, one has to assume for the sake of the situation that the mobster WILL let the other children go, which obviously can't be proved, but for the sake of the argument, he definately will, we live in some magical world

Yes, it's still the more moral option to shoot the single child as long as the others would be saved.

Are you like Spock and Sherlock Holmes' love-child or something

I want more scenarios, this is a really fun thread!

Are you like Spock and Sherlock Holmes' love-child or something

I want more scenarios, this is a really fun thread!

Make that Moriarty and Sherlock's love child and you might have me Why though? Because I'm cruelly rational?

It is a fun thread

Okay - you said you agree in principle, yeah? So, when do the numbers start to not add up, for you? LIke, 1 v 100? 1v 2? 1 v 10? When, if ever, is it not justified? Or should the majority always win, assuming there's no other factors?

I'll do another in a few days. It's nice to see some life in this sub forum.

Or one of you guys could make one! Just start the thread title with 'Morality:'. Ahh I love conformity

Oh, that's different as I have to make the decision as to which baby dies. In the scenario I was talking about, it was rather predetermined - one specific baby v other specific babies. Personal involvement makes the decision more difficult.

Well, would it be better to let the majority die? How is that any better? How is that not "wrong"?

It's not for no reason if it's saving others.