Seasons

Your position seems similar to Prob's. Doesn't such logic, applied to our present time as opposed to messing with the past, promote a sort of apathy bordering on negligence?

Probably. I don't claim to be able to rationalize it. A lose-lose situation always ends in a loss. And without perfect knowledge, we can't accurately evaluate the lesser of two evils.
In the long term we can no more predict the effect on the future, or make any quantative assessment of Net happiness or pain that results from either choice, if one person dies or a million people die. And without that perfect knowledge, I am not competent to make the call. In the hostage situation, I'd offer myself, but I wouldn't choose other victims.
Perhaps if I took death to be a bit more of a big deal, I would feel differently, but I have a fairly unshakable faith that death is not the end. Certainly the prospect doesn't bother me (I'm rather looking forward to it actually - I hope it's not too quick to savour the experience. I'll be so pissed off if I die in my sleep and miss it!)

If all it takes for evil to triumph is for good people to do nothing, isn't doing nothing the same as letting evil win? We may never know whether the acts we do will have the results we hope, but aren't we morally bound to fight the good fight (so to speak)?

Yes, we must take a stand against evil - doing nothing is not an option. But I will never take anything other than an entirely non-violent stand nonetheless. Fortunately we don't have time travel, or bumping off a few infant dictators might just prove too tempting for me, and we have no perfect foresight to know what the future will bring.
It's not an entirely rational thing, and I wouldn't necessarily judge anyone else who chooses to admit the notion that violence is sometimes necessary in extremis. But I don't.

You are too far away to save any children. I could only call to the big guy, jump in front of the car, hope he would take the cue and follow me in a suicide attempt.
apathy bordering on negligence. Sorry, I try not to be apathetic. I do still think that human life is precious. I don't kill animals for sport or fun. In fact I would die for my dog, and I am having to put down a couple of cats, and that is almost killing me. BUT human kind is still my kind. I have every moral obligation to do the best I can toward them. I don't know that I could switch the train without derailing it..killing even more.

So...it's not killing if you kill an animal? It's only killing if you kill a human? It is only MURDER, if you kill a human.


All insects are bugs
all spiders are bugs
Therefore all spiders are insects.
I meant that for the murder vs killing, not the jumping in front of a car. And yes that would kill me, but that is my option.

Ah, but murder is more than killing. It implies prior planning TO kill. So you've placed a condition on the killing, other than just the victim being human. Again, you're confusing the action (killing) with the context (an innocent human).

Would it be murder if I decided to kill and eat my neighbor's beloved cat? The children who loved the cat would think so, even if the law did not.

I don't think you could say it was murder by definition. But it would be EVIL. And that is all I am saying, EVIL exists in this world. Good exists in this would, and even some neutral things..

1 : the crime of unlawfully killing a person especially with malice aforethought
2 a : something very difficult or dangerous b : something outrageous or blameworthy, Getting away with murder.

OK, I can respect both Psimagus and Prob's positions. I just need to point out that it's still a choice, even if you choose to do nothing, and people live or die based on your choice. It's not murder, but it's a life or death decision for other people.

What if you were in a village with a deadly illness that has infected 1000 people and you have only medicine to save 500? Do you give no one medicine because it's not up to you to decide who lives or dies?

You ask excellent questions, Bev!

Irina, They aren't really mine. I am playing with versions of the classic moral dilemas used by philosophers and psychologist to push people's moral reasoning. I guess I just can't stand black and white and I have to get everyone dirty

Bev, don't you find any situation always "black" isn't there something that you think is EVIL all the time? I think there are things that are always good, and I think there are things that are always going to be evil.

positions. I just need to point out that it's still a choice, I half the doses, pray for a miracle and the all live or all die. I know that wasn't one of your options, but that is what I would do.

What is evil? I mean, what might be a definition of "evil"?

My definition of evil is something so foul it turns your stomach.
The dictionary says
1 a : morally reprehensible : SINFUL, WICKED b : arising from actual or imputed bad character or conduct
2 a archaic : INFERIOR b : causing discomfort or repulsion : OFFENSIVE c : DISAGREEABLE
3 a : causing harm : PERNICIOUS b : marked by misfortune : UNLUCKY
I think it's one of those things you know when you see it.

Incidentally, I find prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. The only response likely to be worse is to withhold the medicine entirely. From a practical standpoint, you would have to prioritize. Highest priority: able-bodied adults who have not been so severely hit that they are unlikely to recover. Next priority: children able to walk and help out. Lowest priority: helpless children and elderly invalids. Why? Because they're the least likely to recover AND they won't be much help through the crisis.

A situation like that, you WANT a cold, calculating bastard in charge.