Help me align my moral standards

[chaosyoshimage]

I laugh so hard at the ridiculousness of video games numbered karma/morality systems, however, people putting this kind of system into their actual viewpoints of morality is scary...

 

[Olivia Faraday]

Murder is worse than rape. No argument.

I was raped repeatedly as a young child (I realize this comes off as I'M SPARTACUS but you have to just accept that I'm telling the truth, it was a non-immediate but close family member who was my primary babysitter, they drove themselves mad with guilt induced dementia and died when I was thirteen, don't want to give more details than that.) I think I was probably raped more than thirty times though I was very young and obviously, quite traumatized. I think the last time was when I was nine. I have full memory of some of these events, partial memory of others, some are forgotten for good.

That was a horrible thing that happened to me, but I am so glad that that person didn't KILL me instead.

Last month I finished the first draft of my first novel. In the new year my sister is moving to the city of her dreams and I'm so excited to wave her goodbye. My uncle is currently dying of cancer and I'm really bonding with him. I was able to save my mother from a suicide attempt when I was twenty. I saw the Lion King in theatres when I was ten and it was the coolest thing that ever happened to me. Hell, today I ate a sweet onion chicken teriyaki sub from subway and it was fucking delicious. Every single one of those things was awesome as hell and I'm so glad I was alive to experience them.

Not gonna lie, I'm super fucked up, but forgive me if I can definitely 100% say that being raped as a child is better than being murdered, and therefore a child rapist is less evil than a murderer. I'm living a life that I'm happy to live and every single day brings new joys and blessings, even if they're sometimes just the delicious crispy top of subway's parmesan oregano bread.

To quote the wonderful Tyrion Lannister: death is so terribly final and life is full of possibilities.

 

[JoJo]

I find it confusing that you seem to be haphazardly blanketing statements like that. I understand that you say it is a rough guide, but I am not sure you know just how detailed you are going to have to get with it to define values to people like that. Nothing is really as clear cut as you seem to think it is. I am fine with people assigning values to the lives of each person as long as it is done in a very meticulous, objective manner. Also, you seem to value people more if they got pregnant in their teens or very early twenties(maybe I am just reading too much into it).

Your dilemma is skewed to give you the answer you want. You very clearly value A more than B. If B wasn't a murderer or 5 was terminally ill, the answer to this question may reveal some meaningful data. However, I would choose C. If I directly chose to kill either of them, I wouldn't be any better than a murderer. I am more like a general sending troops into battle with C.

Trust me, I have thought this though carefully, it is a part of my own personal morality after-all. I don't increase value on people specifically because they "got pregnant in their teens or very early twenties", I increase the value of anyone who is parentally responsible for a young child, regardless of what their age is or whether they are biologically the parent or not. That doesn't mean that their value can't also be lowered by other factors (such as criminality). The increase is for the child's sake, not for the parents. If I had an actual situation where I had to choose between two people, I would take every availible scrap of information into consideration before I made my choice although it would unlikely to not follow this list above.

My intention of the question was to show you that you too have some sort of internal rating system, however I'm surprised at your answer. I personally would hold you responsible if the child ended up dying rather than the murderer, and you can bet if that child was someone I care about like my younger sister then I wouldn't rest until I had my revenge. From my own point of view I would see you as no better than a murderer if you risked and ended up sacrificing an innocent child's life just for the life of a murderer. Nothing personal of-course, I'd do the same to anyone.

 

[crudus]

My intention of the question was to show you that you too have some sort of internal rating system, however I'm surprised at your answer. I personally would hold you responsible if the child ended up dying rather than the murderer, and you can bet if that child was someone I care about like my younger sister then I wouldn't rest until I had my revenge. From my own point of view I would see you as no better than a murderer if you risked and ended up sacrificing an innocent child's life just for the life of a murderer. Nothing personal of-course, I'd do the same to anyone.

But I don't hold people's lives above others. I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives. As such, I do not have the right to say a murderer deserves life less than a random child who has been described as "innocent". Quick question though: would you really be any better if you killed a murderer? You would have committed a murder[footnote]Murder here being "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."(<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder>Dictionary.com)[/footnote] which would yourself make you a murderer.

 

[Woodsey]

Once you're at child rape and murder you've gone past the point where you can quantify which is worse.

 

[JoJo]

But I don't hold people's lives above others. I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives. As such, I do not have the right to say a murderer deserves life less than a random child who has been described as "innocent". Quick question though: would you really be any better if you killed a murderer? You would have committed a murder[footnote]Murder here being "the killing of another human being under conditions specifically covered in law. In the U.S., special statutory definitions include murder committed with malice aforethought, characterized by deliberation or premeditation or occurring during the commission of another serious crime, as robbery or arson (first-degree murder), and murder by intent but without deliberation or premeditation (second-degree murder)."(<a href=http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/murder>Dictionary.com)[footnote] which would yourself make you a murderer.

Depends on the circumstance in which I killed the murderer. If I just killed him randomly for fun because I just wanted to kill someone, then yes that would make me a murderer. If it was to save a child's life then no of course not, it's not like I wanted to kill the murderer, I've simply decided that if one of them has to die it might as well be the one who has done a very bad deed rather than the one who is innocent and (at-least should be) held very dear by her family. You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

 

[Indeterminacy]

Depends on the circumstance in which I killed the murderer. If I just killed him randomly for fun because I just wanted to kill someone, then yes that would make me a murderer. If it was to save a child's life then no of course not, it's not like I wanted to kill the murderer, I've simply decided that if one of them has to die it might as well be the one who has done a very bad deed rather than the one who is innocent and (at-least should be) held very dear by her family. You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

While I can't speak for your respondent, I have a similar perspective, though the choice of (C) is dependent on the availability of certain decisive information. In the absence of any data whatsoever other than "person A is this, person B is this, and one of them will die with equal chance of each", I just lack any warrant to intervene in the process that decides which.

In order to make a decision as to which life to save, there needs to be some information as to the situation in which the two people are being presented to be killed. If I'm not given sufficient accurate information to be able to truthfully say that there is a determinate fact of the matter as to which of the two "is better", then I simply lack any kind of ability to make a sound judgement to any effect. Moreover, what if the information denies there being a "wrong" choice, such as where both are to some extent either due to be killed? Again, this would seem to be a situation in which I lack critical faculties required to judge effectively.

I believe (C) is the rational option in cases where the way in which the choice has been presented lacks sufficient data to make a clear analysis, because if I have not been given enough information, there is too much of a risk that I have been primed to divert responsibility from those actually performing the deed pending my intervention.

I think your choice between "a child" and "a murderer" is one such situation. Why do I have any reason to think either is more morally deserving of death right now?

 

[jimahaff]

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Morality is something you need to figure out for your self; mostly because everybody disagrees about when immoral things could potentially be considered acceptable.
For me it is only acceptable to take a life when you are protecting someone else and giving up your own life is not enough to guarantee that the person or persons you are protecting survive.
Not that I'm trying to say that I'm the most moral person here, or that everybody should follow my moral code, I am just saying that what this is the code I live by. This example is a little extreme and I picked it for a reason; I know that most of you will either disagree with me, or want to edit that example slightly before you would follow it, and that's OK. Different people have very different moral codes, you should figure yours out for yourself and not blindly follow a code that isn't yours(even if that moral code is the one the legal system enforces).

Also to me it is unthinkable to compare or rate "bad" actions on a scale. Just don't do it unless you consider yourself to be justified, and you have already covered all the bases.

So button line; create your own moral system that transcends the legal system of whatever nation you live in. Decide for your self whether or not all those stupid laws are worth following and why; and remember that "I just don't want to deal with the legal system" is a perfectly valid reason to follow their laws.

Before all else do what you consider to be the right thing before you even consider doing what the government(or anyone really) tells you to do; if you can get that down you will live a life without regret and that peace of mind is worth more than words can describe.

Sorry if this was a little long, and props if you read the whole thing.

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

Sorry if this was a little long, and props if you read the whole thing.

Most of my posts were longer and I did neither apologies nor encourage the brave readers. Now I feel bad.

Anyway, I'm have my system of morals up and running for a while now. Its decent enough to get by without getting into serious trouble so far.
Sometimes I see discrepancies, sometimes I see illogical arguments that collide with my system and when such things happen I start something like these threads here.

I'm quite relieved that some of the posters have a functioning system others seem to contradict themselves, but I am not here to judge, I just ask for opinions and observe.

But I still can't fathom why games (or their developers and publishers) treat those different capital crimes not equally but in a completely biased way.

 

[jimahaff]

First off let me just say that was a very imtimating block of text, and secondly for the most part I agree with you. There is just one thing I view differently. Now I'm not saying you are wrong or even that I am more right I'm just adding fuel to the discussion.

a maniacal psycho who kills people for uncontrollable psychological reasons might warrant different treatment than a person who, in a fit of vengeful passion, killed their cheating spouse. For the spouse-killer, the crime was tied to a specific incident, whereas for the psycho the crime is almost an inherent part of their personality. And if the spouse-killer never killed again, is there any point to keeping them locked up?

So what you believe is that the severity of the punishment should be dependent on their motivation and likely hood or committing the crime again; right? Very reasonable but like I said- I view it differently.

For me the spouse-killer has shown a lack of moral character sever enough as to let them murder another humane being for emotional reasons. To me that is pride and arrogance and the ugliest thing I can see in another humane being. Sure the likelihood of it happening again is low and it is dependent on someone else triggering those emotional reasons. But that action (spouse-murder) still shows a fundamental weakness of character, and by violating the basic humane rights of another, this person has given up his right to exist in civilized society(take that to mean whatever you want).

Now just to put this in context; I would snap necks without hesitation under the right circumstances. I would still see it as wrong and would turn myself in to face society, but I would never regret my decision. It isn't that the specific situation I am thinking of justifies my actions(hypothetical murder in this case)its that I would rather live with myself knowing that I have taken another humane life, than life with myself knowing that I have violated my own moral code, betrayed what that moral code stands for, and failed to protect what that moral code is in place to protect.

That is all....

 

[weker]

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Questions:
Is child rape worse that murder? Why?
Yes? Then how many murders equals one child rape?
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder?

Piracy is bad. Correct
Murder is bad. Correct
Rape is bad. Correct
Child Rape is bad. Correct
Tax Evasion is bad. Correct

Questions:
Is child rape worse that murder? Why? Child rape will damage the child mentally, but killing someone leaves them without a life, on the whole murder is worse, but rape can have repercussions.

No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

 

[jimahaff]

Fair enough. Mine would be something closer to

Domesticated animals
Food Animals
Murderers and such

You can't tell right now but I am trembling with joy at your post, please don't take this personally. Now on to playing devils advocate.

So if you remove our cultural horror of cannibalism what your post says to me is that you would rather eat "Murderers and such" than you would eat say a hamburger(made from cows, or "Food Animals"). =D Think about it for a second, you have said that you value/respect food animals more than humans who have crossed some invisible line. So you if your hand were forced you would naturally rather eat the thing you value/respect the least.

OK enough of that; and I'm sorry for picking on you, I just couldn't resist. My view is that no matter how far a humane falls they are still a humane and we should treat them with the respect that we would all humane. Should they be punished? absolutely, but a persons actions can't change their inherent value. There fore Leapold II (who I hate(also look him up or watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378 (if the link doesn't work just google video White king red rubber black death))) is due more respect than my beloved cat, or a house plant; on merit of him being a humane being. Ya I know I have some crazy beliefs.

Sorry for posting so much I just really love this thread, and hard core serious props if you actually watch that entire movie I linked. OK I'm done (gets off soap box and walks out of the room).

 

[SidingWithTheEnemy]

[...]
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

While the last bit was a bit confusing I think the reasoning behind the numbers is sound. Thank you.

To satisfy my curiostity allow me a question:
Did you ever play videogames where you murdered someone? How did it feel? If there would be an additional rape option, would you have prefered it (instead of murder)? I'm just curious because I'm asking this myself when I murdered.
I'm not here to judge, I'm just interested in this whole dilemma of taboos our society got itself into.

 

[DEAD34345]

Fair enough. Mine would be something closer to

Domesticated animals
Food Animals
Murderers and such

You can't tell right now but I am trembling with joy at your post, please don't take this personally. Now on to playing devils advocate.

So if you remove our cultural horror of cannibalism what your post says to me is that you would rather eat "Murderers and such" than you would eat say a hamburger(made from cows, or "Food Animals"). =D Think about it for a second, you have said that you value/respect food animals more than humans who have crossed some invisible line. So you if your hand were forced you would naturally rather eat the thing you value/respect the least.

OK enough of that; and I'm sorry for picking on you, I just couldn't resist. My view is that no matter how far a humane falls they are still a humane and we should treat them with the respect that we would all humane. Should they be punished? absolutely, but a persons actions can't change their inherent value. There fore Leapold II (who I hate(also look him up or watch this http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4748355130635434378 (if the link doesn't work just google video White king red rubber black death))) is due more respect than my beloved cat, or a house plant; on merit of him being a humane being. Ya I know I have some crazy beliefs.

Sorry for posting so much I just really love this thread, and hard core serious props if you actually watch that entire movie I linked. OK I'm done (gets off soap box and walks out of the room).

Uh... you seem to have messed up the quote somehow, because I never actually said that. I'm pretty sure you meant to quote the guy who posted above me, ccdohl.

Since you responded to me, I'd like to say I disagree with your reasoning anyway. Cannibalism is a special case that naturally repulses people with good reason, since there is supposedly a number of diseases you can get get from it. However, if you were to ask whether I would rather murder an innocent cow or a child molester, I'd kill the child molester. I just wouldn't want to eat him (or her, women can be child molesters too, gender equality and all that).

Also I seem to have almost the opposite view to you on the worth of human beings, as I think that a person's actions (or potential actions) are the only things that gives them any value at all. I don't believe in an "inherent value" people gain just for existing.

 

[weker]

[...]
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder? For me... 3 maybe 4 they would have to be fairly bad with massive repercussions for the child.

While the last bit was a bit confusing I think the reasoning behind the numbers is sound. Thank you.

To satisfy my curiostity allow me a question:
Did you ever play videogames where you murdered someone? How did it feel? If there would be an additional rape option, would you have prefered it (instead of murder)? I'm just curious because I'm asking this myself when I murdered.
I'm not here to judge, I'm just interested in this whole dilemma of taboos our society got itself into.

With rape, it tends to be vastly more visually degrading, with murder short and quick, and it doesn't last that long. Rape is slow, and there is more emotions attacking you if it occurred, as there is more feedback from the victim. Rape would feel really bad in a game, as murder in video games is also the norm, and rape in our society has become extremely taboo.

some what relevant video, which sort of reflects part of the "Rape taboo"

 

[JoJo]

While I can't speak for your respondent, I have a similar perspective, though the choice of (C) is dependent on the availability of certain decisive information. In the absence of any data whatsoever other than "person A is this, person B is this, and one of them will die with equal chance of each", I just lack any warrant to intervene in the process that decides which.

In order to make a decision as to which life to save, there needs to be some information as to the situation in which the two people are being presented to be killed. If I'm not given sufficient accurate information to be able to truthfully say that there is a determinate fact of the matter as to which of the two "is better", then I simply lack any kind of ability to make a sound judgement to any effect. Moreover, what if the information denies there being a "wrong" choice, such as where both are to some extent either due to be killed? Again, this would seem to be a situation in which I lack critical faculties required to judge effectively.

I believe (C) is the rational option in cases where the way in which the choice has been presented lacks sufficient data to make a clear analysis, because if I have not been given enough information, there is too much of a risk that I have been primed to divert responsibility from those actually performing the deed pending my intervention.

I think your choice between "a child" and "a murderer" is one such situation. Why do I have any reason to think either is more morally deserving of death right now?

Because barring extremely unlikely circumstances, a child is automatically less deserving of death than any adult, let alone a murderer. If you don't believe me, just look at the extra hatred that child murderers or rapists get, even in prison from regular murderers.

Also in a real life situation the chances are you wouldn't have enough time to judge every little facet. While it's an effective thought experiment, in the real world you would almost certainly never have to pick between two people for certain death. Instead you might be the first on the scene of a terrible car accident and have to decide who to give aid to first to: the mother or her child?

While thankfully I've never been in such an extreme situation, I have been in a more minor one that made me make a split second decision between the safety of two beings. This summer I was at a party with my neighbours and I ended up supervising my 8 year old sister and her friend who's about the same age out the front near the road, I was the only adult around. The kids were playing with my sister friend's cat but being an animal, it tried to escape them and ran into the road where a car was travelling towards it. My sister's friend could see that the car was heading it's way and she began to step into the road to get the cat. I made the split-second decision that it was too risky for her to attempt to retrieve the cat and called out for her to stay where she was, which luckily she did.

If I had taken time to think about my decision carefully, then she would have already walked into the road and could well have been hit by the car. In a second I decided that while I didn't want to see the cat get run over, and thankfully it did manage to avoid the car after-all, I valued the child's life too much to let her put herself at risk for the cat's sake. The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

 

[Indeterminacy]

The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

But the key thing here is that I have no gut instinct concerning the choice in your thought experiment. In the Mother/Child example, obviously you need to do a quick balance up between gravity of the injury and likelihood of survival, but those things being equal, I would genuinely rather fight the odds to rescue both of them than to try to limit the damage and rescue just one at the expense of the other. My snap decisions simply don't work like yours, largely because the only possible reasons I can think of for choosing one over the other simply don't come into effect (in your particular example of a single binary decision) at the point at which the decision needs to be made.

My snap decision process is about quickly identifying optimal strategies, rather than extrapolating from general rules. In the Mother/Child scenario, let's say 100% of the time the person I choose lives and the other dies. However, suppose I instead spend time calling for help, or by dealing with some structural aspect of the car wreck, putting both mother and child at a 60% chance of survival. This is unquestionably a better option to me. Even given that there is a 16% chance that they'll both die, more often than not more people will survive by my adopting this strategy than by choosing one over the other.

Reducing the case to 50% would mean the two strategies were just as good, and if the situation looked worse than that, I would try to see if I could take a prior risk that would improve the case to one above 50%. Of course if saving the Mother or Child first might improve the survival chance of the other, then we have a different story; I would most likely assist the Mother first for that reason.

The point being here that I adopt a position of indifference towards people on the basis of social status. I would think differently if it was my family on the line, or if it was a choice between people with talents of varying levels of practical importance (I'd rescue a doctor over a banker every time, say). But without such differences, I'm inclined to abstract away from the nature of the individual and more towards a maximum utility perspective.

Obviously the cat example is different - the snap decision is easy here because the optimal strategy weighs very heavily towards not putting the child at risk.

 

[Gloomsta]

This popped up in my mind after I saw a dicussion in another thread and now I want to know your opinion.

As far as I know:

Piracy is bad.
Murder is bad.
Rape is bad.
Child Rape is bad.
Tax Evasion is bad.
But of course they are not equally bad.

Questions:

Is child rape worse that murder? Why?
Yes? Then how many murders equals one child rape?
No? Then how many child rapes equal one murder?

These things are exactly compare, their both fucking bad.


In general to harm others is bad, to harm others for yourself is bad.

 

[crudus]

This is going to get kind of hard to manage, but bear with me. We can do it.

Instead you might be the first on the scene of a terrible car accident and have to decide who to give aid to first to: the mother or her child?

Easy, the most injured one. It is even easier if one or both of them in conscious. Also, random passer-bys tend to get to the scene very quickly. If they are both heavily injured and/or unconscious, then at least one (my money is on the child) died on impact. It is surprisingly difficult to knock somebody on conscious. If you are knocked unconscious by a blow to the head for even a few seconds, expect brain damage.

I made the split-second decision that it was too risky for her to attempt to retrieve the cat and called out for her to stay where she was, which luckily she did.

Last I heard, over 90 percent of pet owners say they are willing to risk their lives for their pets. I for one was a little disappointed in the fact the survey didn't tell me how many of those pets were goldfish, but you can't have everything. Although yes you would have has a fun time explaining that to the guardian of the child.

The point I'm trying to demonstrate is in a real life situation the chances are you won't have time to carefully weight up your options, you have to go with your gut instinct. The list is the internal guide that I follow without even really thinking about it.

Here is the thing though: this started as "it is worse to kill a 20-year-old than a 92-year-old". Then I said something like "well, since we rank crimes by severity anyway, we may as well take into account how good of a person the victim was and calculate that into the sentencing". We have that sort of time to calculate that out before a trial.

You really want to the one who tells her grieving father that you allowed his little princess to die instead of a murderer just to keep your own perceived moral standing intact?

How about if I told B's mother that I chose him to die because of his past? I don't know when the murder took place, or if he regrets it. He could have committed the murder 15-20 years prior. He could be an upstanding citizen of the community without a single other thing on his record. Hell depending on how the conviction was written, he could have just been a drunk driver who killed someone. Something like is without malice or intent. Imagine telling his daughter and wife that you chose him to die for something he did in the past.

If your little dilemma happened to my daughter and somebody told me they picked C, I would tell them they did the right thing. I certainly wouldn't hold any ill will against him even if he did pick A or B. I assume this is totally against the choosers will (gun point or something).

If you're talking about revenge then no, it wouldn't make you a murderer by my standards if you were justified: i.e. for some reason they were able to evade justice and there was no doubt that it was them. I'm not a particular fan of vigilantism but I would be a hypocrite to condemn it entirely since I know I would do it if the circumstances were right.

I am extremely curious of your definition of murder all of a sudden. It certainly isn't the U.S. legal definition.

Quick question for you, why don't you hold people's lives above others? The only reason you've given so far is that you've said "I, nor anyone else, has the right to say who dies and who lives." You've never specified why though, I could say "I, nor anyone else, has the right to eat bananas on a Sunday" but it won't make it true without further reasoning to back it up. I've given logical reasons to all my beliefs, even if you don't agree with them, so what's yours?

If I say murdering another is wrong, why would I have the right to do it? If I killed for revenge where does that get me even if it was legal? It doesn't being back what/who I lost, it just brings more pain in the world, and it would make me a hypocrite. Revenge has malicious intent and premeditation and is therefore murder. Now why is murdering people wrong? All I can say is how I make my moral standings. I started off by breaking everything down into the golden rule (do unto others, etc). I don't want to be murdered, I therefore do not murder. If I reach that conclusion, I consider it wrong(severity varies).

Back to your dilemma. Why would I have the right to decide who is more deserving of life? Better yet, why is a murderer less deserving of life? Why is anyone more deserving of life? A murderer can show regret, have a life, try to make amends. Everyone should have a chance at redemption; it isn't something we can deny them of. Why? Because I would like a chance if I was in their shoes. I honestly would not be able to choose between them. It isn't just because of my moral code. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually cannot point at someone and say "they deserve life more than that person". We can run your dilemma millions upon billions of times and no matter what A and B are, I will always choose C.

 

[JoJo]

But the key thing here is that I have no gut instinct concerning the choice in your thought experiment. In the Mother/Child example, obviously you need to do a quick balance up between gravity of the injury and likelihood of survival, but those things being equal, I would genuinely rather fight the odds to rescue both of them than to try to limit the damage and rescue just one at the expense of the other. My snap decisions simply don't work like yours, largely because the only possible reasons I can think of for choosing one over the other simply don't come into effect (in your particular example of a single binary decision) at the point at which the decision needs to be made.

My snap decision process is about quickly identifying optimal strategies, rather than extrapolating from general rules. In the Mother/Child scenario, let's say 100% of the time the person I choose lives and the other dies. However, suppose I instead spend time calling for help, or by dealing with some structural aspect of the car wreck, putting both mother and child at a 60% chance of survival. This is unquestionably a better option to me. Even given that there is a 16% chance that they'll both die, more often than not more people will survive by my adopting this strategy than by choosing one over the other.

Reducing the case to 50% would mean the two strategies were just as good, and if the situation looked worse than that, I would try to see if I could take a prior risk that would improve the case to one above 50%. Of course if saving the Mother or Child first might improve the survival chance of the other, then we have a different story; I would most likely assist the Mother first for that reason.

The point being here that I adopt a position of indifference towards people on the basis of social status. I would think differently if it was my family on the line, or if it was a choice between people with talents of varying levels of practical importance (I'd rescue a doctor over a banker every time, say). But without such differences, I'm inclined to abstract away from the nature of the individual and more towards a maximum utility perspective.

Obviously the cat example is different - the snap decision is easy here because the optimal strategy weighs very heavily towards not putting the child at risk.

That's all very well and good, but the issue I can see here is that you are giving exact percentages for the chances of survival for each of the victims. In real life you wouldn't know what was the optimal strategy, you probably wouldn't even know much about their injuries (I'm assuming you aren't a trained medical practician) other than what's immediately apparent. From what you've said it sounds like you have an internal rating system I like I do considering you said you'd pick a doctor over a banker, just as I would choose a child over an adult. There probably isn't much more to argue about since internal moral systems aren't the sort of thing that can be changed at a whim.

This is going to get kind of hard to manage, but bear with me. We can do it.

Easy, the most injured one. It is even easier if one or both of them in conscious. Also, random passer-bys tend to get to the scene very quickly. If they are both heavily injured and/or unconscious, then at least one (my money is on the child) died on impact. It is surprisingly difficult to knock somebody on conscious. If you are knocked unconscious by a blow to the head for even a few seconds, expect brain damage. [/quote]

That's a valid answer, though the rest of the paragraph's a little irrelevant as I'm giving it as a rough example to which the details aren't relevant, the important point is that in a real life situation you almost certainly wouldn't have time to get into careful thought about who to value more.

Last I heard, over 90 percent of pet owners say they are willing to risk their lives for their pets. I for one was a little disappointed in the fact the survey didn't tell me how many of those pets were goldfish, but you can't have everything. Although yes you would have has a fun time explaining that to the guardian of the child.

I'm surprised by the highness of that figure, guess some of those must be goldfish owners! If she had been an adult then risking her life would have been her own choice but I'll be damned if I let an 8 or 9 year old girl risk getting injured for the sake of a cat I don't frankly give a shit about.

Here is the thing though: this started as "it is worse to kill a 20-year-old than a 92-year-old". Then I said something like "well, since we rank crimes by severity anyway, we may as well take into account how good of a person the victim was and calculate that into the sentencing". We have that sort of time to calculate that out before a trial.

Agreed, we have deviated from the original point somewhat. Taking the victim's past into account wouldn't make much of a difference though, and shouldn't at-all if the murderer was unaware of that past. The only case I can think of it where it perhaps should make a difference is if the victim has somehow terribly wronged the murderer or someone close to them, then that might be mitigating factor depending on what actually happened.

How about if I told B's mother that I chose him to die because of his past? I don't know when the murder took place, or if he regrets it. He could have committed the murder 15-20 years prior. He could be an upstanding citizen of the community without a single other thing on his record. Hell depending on how the conviction was written, he could have just been a drunk driver who killed someone. Something like is without malice or intent. Imagine telling his daughter and wife that you chose him to die for something he did in the past.

If your little dilemma happened to my daughter and somebody told me they picked C, I would tell them they did the right thing. I certainly wouldn't hold any ill will against him even if he did pick A or B. I assume this is totally against the choosers will (gun point or something).

I am extremely curious of your definition of murder all of a sudden. It certainly isn't the U.S. legal definition.

Well I don't live in the U.S. (I'm British) so that definition doesn't affect me unless I go on holiday to there. My definition is "the deliberate killing of a person without justification", the pretty much the same as the law, though I might stretch "justification" to include revenge in certain circumstances such as a rapist or murderer getting away without being punished.

If I say murdering another is wrong, why would I have the right to do it? If I killed for revenge where does that get me even if it was legal? It doesn't being back what/who I lost, it just brings more pain in the world, and it would make me a hypocrite. Revenge has malicious intent and premeditation and is therefore murder. Now why is murdering people wrong? All I can say is how I make my moral standings. I started off by breaking everything down into the golden rule (do unto others, etc). I don't want to be murdered, I therefore do not murder. If I reach that conclusion, I consider it wrong(severity varies).

I agree with the golden rule, which is why I believe that moral justice must be enforced. If someone commits a great wrong they must be punished, that doesn't make me a hypocrite as unlike them I had a valid reason. I would only resort to vigilantism if the justice system had already failed since a proper system is far better than anything else, but I could never rest if I knew someone who had committed a wrong against someone I love was still at large and unpunished. I also see the idea of the revenge seeker as aesthetically beautiful, a person with one clear goal in their mind, motivated by love to aim like a homing missile towards the offender until they strike down like an angel of death upon them to dispel justice.

Back to your dilemma. Why would I have the right to decide who is more deserving of life? Better yet, why is a murderer less deserving of life? Why is anyone more deserving of life? A murderer can show regret, have a life, try to make amends. Everyone should have a chance at redemption; it isn't something we can deny them of. Why? Because I would like a chance if I was in their shoes. I honestly would not be able to choose between them. It isn't just because of my moral code. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually cannot point at someone and say "they deserve life more than that person". We can run your dilemma millions upon billions of times and no matter what A and B are, I will always choose C.

Then I'm afraid at this point we'll have to agree to disagree. In my mind while there are no crimes that are technically unredeemable, any murderer who was truly regretful would accept death in place of the other person and therefore perhaps be redeemed. Child murderers are very close to the point where one is unredeemable and unless they either killed themselves for justice or dedicated the rest of their life to doing right, then that stain will never leave their soul. Under my morality young children are always morally more valuable than anyone-else and so I'd expect not only any adult to prioritise a child and give them extra care, but to also willingly make the ultimate sacrifice if need be. I physically, emotionally, or spiritually could not make any other choice. I understand the reason behind your morality but I reject the notion that all people are equal in value and while I'm not perfect, I'll judge it as best I can.