Is absolute morality at all applicable?

[Klumpfot]

Can you apply an absolute moral standard to the following situations?
(I am going to speak exclusively about hypothetical scenarios, to hopefully keep it less controversial)

If a billionaire businessman offers to set up a trade program to help stimulate economic growth in developing nations (leading to improved health care, education and overall quality of life) in exchange for 10 babies to kill, brutally and slowly, to satisfy a teenage fantasy he had, is this morally defendable?
On a related note, is it defendable at all to be that rich, and -not- be willing to use your assets to save perhaps millions of lives?

Is it okay to drop a bomb on a civilian city, killing 50,000 innocents, to stop a war and save 250,000 soldiers from both sides from dying on the field of battle?

Say you've got a terminal disease, the only treatment for which is giving it to three others via a painless treatment. You're given the option to do this without them ever knowing, and them never having to consent. Would you?

Would you kill 20 people if there is a 1% chance that you doing so will ensure that 20,000 other people won't get killed?

Would you rather have 20 adults die than 10 children?


It seems difficult to me to say with certainty that any option is obviously much superior to the other.


Avoid the topic of religion, please, as discussions about it often escalate.
I couldn't find any related threads when searching, but if I do repeat an earlier thread, I am sorry.

 

[Freshman]

In my critical thinking class last semester, we watched a series of lectures from a Harvard prof. who was saying basically the same thing, only with a troly running over workers.

But to answer your question, you certainly cannot apply and ABSOLUTE moral standard; the particulars of each situation really warrant whether or not it is morally right/wrong

 

[orangebandguy]

Your situations rely on the utilitarian principle, which at it's most basic form is an absolute.

The greatest good for the greatest number of people. But some types of utilitarian belief may argue for or against those situations. Unfortunately utilitarianism has the ability to justify any act if the outcome is eventually good with no defence for the minorities.

The holocaust can be justified with the advances in medical science and experiments even though those acts are heinous and wrong.


You can have absolute principles, it's more to do with Kantian Ethics which I've yet to study.

 

[Mcupobob]

morals are just like human opinions, in fact they are just human opinions. So there forth are mostly useless, because everyone has there own defention of right and wrong and in the end most morals get tossed aside for greed or hate.

 

[Earthmonger]

Morality is illogical bullshit, as emphasized by your hypothetical scenarios.

If a billionaire businessman offers to set up a trade program to help stimulate economic growth in developing nations (leading to improved health care, education and overall quality of life) in exchange for 10 babies to kill, brutally and slowly, to satisfy a teenage fantasy he had, is this morally defendable?

No. In this situation the people in power step in, erase this insane bastard, and seize his assets.

On a related note, is it defendable at all to be that rich, and -not- be willing to use your assets to save perhaps millions of lives?

Absolutely. Look at the people who made their fortunes building the weapons of war. But anyway, if it serves their interests or is personally beneficial in some other way to "save" lives, sure.

Is it okay to drop a bomb on a civilian city, killing 50,000 innocents, to stop a war and save 250,000 soldiers from both sides from dying on the field of battle?

Depends. Are the heads of both armies in that city? Otherwise, pointless.

Say you've got a terminal disease, the only treatment for which is giving it to three others via a painless treatment. You're given the option to do this without them ever knowing, and them never having to consent. Would you?

If it's terminal, how would transmitting to others save your own hide? In this situation, I might use the "stealth transmission" as a tool to remove specific individuals, such as those responsible for the war in the last scenario. Barring that, no, I'd just accept my fate. People have an unnecessary fear of death.

Would you kill 20 people if there is a 1% chance that you doing so will ensure that 20,000 other people won't get killed?

No, as I'd just be contributing to those 20,000 deaths.

Would you rather have 20 adults die than 10 children?

Hmm. 20 adults with useful educations versus 10 children who've yet to know the hardships of life. Not a tough one there.

 

[xHipaboo420x]

To be absolutely honest, it doesn't matter what you think because it's going to happen anyway, changing your opinion on it only satisfies yourself.

<3

But yeah, absolute morality only tends to work in theory, or in the context of genocide.

 

[Dragonborne88]

I'll risk sounding like a jerk-off to answer a few of these and give my opinion on them.

If a billionaire businessman offers to set up a trade program to help stimulate economic growth in developing nations (leading to improved health care, education and overall quality of life) in exchange for 10 babies to kill, brutally and slowly, to satisfy a teenage fantasy he had, is this morally defendable?

-No, I don't believe letting him do that, even if it was an adult, is an acceptable trade off. The people in said country have survived all this time already, they can survive longer without this monster's money. I don't feel the death of anything, especially "brutally and slowly" is worth the cost he is offering. Especially babies who haven't had a chance to even prove themselves in the world.

Is it okay to drop a bomb on a civilian city, killing 50,000 innocents, to stop a war and save 250,000 soldiers from both sides from dying on the field of battle?

-This one is hard. I'm going to have to err on the side of letting the war go on. The combatants signed up for the military knowing the risks, and to be blunt, it's their job. The 50,000 civilians include children, I'm assuming, and they wouldn't expect or know about the day all their lives would come to an end. Hardly a fair trade off, in my opinion.

Say you've got a terminal disease, the only treatment for which is giving it to three others via a painless treatment. You're given the option to do this without them ever knowing, and them never having to consent. Would you?

-I know I can't honestly answer this without actually having said terminal illness, since I'm sure that would change my opinion vastly, but my moral compass says "Screw that noise." I'm not going to damn 3 people just to save my life. If it was purely my choice, then I might reconsider and give it to known criminals or whatnot, but three people of their choosing? Hell no, I'll die to it myself and let them keep living.

Would you kill 20 people if there is a 1% chance that you doing so will ensure that 20,000 other people won't get killed?

-Nope. 1% chance does not justify the outright murder of 20 people that you have no proof did anything wrong. They could be a saint in the community for all I know.

Would you rather have 20 adults die than 10 children?

-Yes. Children haven't choosen their final path in life yet. You never know what they could possibly contribute at some point. The adults, however, usually have.

 

[Jedoro]

While I can accept that others could make those decisions, I refuse to harm or kill a neutral party.

 

[Ganthrinor]

Can you apply an absolute moral standard to the following situations?
(I am going to speak exclusively about hypothetical scenarios, to hopefully keep it less controversial)

If a billionaire businessman offers to set up a trade program to help stimulate economic growth in developing nations (leading to improved health care, education and overall quality of life) in exchange for 10 babies to kill, brutally and slowly, to satisfy a teenage fantasy he had, is this morally defendable?

Yes. Give him babies that were intended to be aborted, or test-tube babies.

On a related note, is it defendable at all to be that rich, and -not- be willing to use your assets to save perhaps millions of lives?

The "saving of millions of lives" is nebulous at best. Most of the money would be eaten up by organiational and "distribution of aid" costs rather than actually putting rice on tables.

Is it okay to drop a bomb on a civilian city, killing 50,000 innocents, to stop a war and save 250,000 soldiers from both sides from dying on the field of battle?

250,000 on each side or total? What kind of "innocents" are we talking here? Children? Adults? Both? Actually, screw it, I'd drop the bomb anyway, just because of the sheer Humanitarian and Economical efficiency. There's a lot of money to be made in building a new city from the ground up.

Say you've got a terminal disease, the only treatment for which is giving it to three others via a painless treatment. You're given the option to do this without them ever knowing, and them never having to consent. Would you?

Die, or start an Pandemic plague which will cause repurcussions I'm not likely to survive? Hmmm... I'd spread it, just for shits and giggles.

Would you kill 20 people if there is a 1% chance that you doing so will ensure that 20,000 other people won't get killed?

Maybe. If I don't kill the 20, do I get to kill the 20,000? If not, I'd totally kill the 20.

Would you rather have 20 adults die than 10 children?

Kill the children, they're easily replacable. Agrueably, the adults are skilled at a craft, and can reproduce faster than the children.

It seems difficult to me to say with certainty that any option is obviously much superior to the other.

Not to me =)

I am what the Dungeons and Dragons crowd refers to as "Chaotic Neutral". I base many of my decisions upon two things A) Personal Profit or B) Personal Amusement.

Odds are, I would have bombed the city no matter what, JUST BECAUSE IT WAS AN OPTION.