Seasons
This is a forum or general chit-chat, small talk, a "hey, how ya doing?" and such. Or hell, get crazy deep on something. Whatever you like.
Posts 4,347 - 4,358 of 6,170
Bev, don't you find any situation always "black" isn't there something that you think is EVIL all the time
I find some actions to be evil by my judgment, but I know that is colored by my perspective and value system and such evil exists on a continuum and must be judged in terms of the circumstances. I would still do what I could to fight the "evil" but I would see that it is a label I gave it, and "good" is also based on my point of view. I then have an obligation to evolve a system of ethics and stand by it, so that my actions are in tune with my values.
Nietzsche* once gave an example of a lion and a lamb. To the lamb, the lion is evil. To the lion, the lamb is dinner. If a wild animal eats her own children, is it "evil"?
When human kills her child, I say yes, it is evil. However, that same person came to do that evil based on many conditions, and may also do "good" at other times. I call her monster, but maybe her surviving children call her mommy. I judge the acts, I want her held responsible, but I also want to know what happened that would make a woman do that, and how to heal her family.
Across the board, I'll go out on a limb and say that unless there is an extreme case where others' survival depended on it, killing a 5 year old is "bad". I will go on the record and say I am against killing little kids and if I can stop such killings I will. Those are my moral values, I think they are good for society as a whole, and I vote, through my actions, that we all adapt such morals. I can't vote fro everyone else though. Also it is the action I am against, not "evil people".
I have to say that I find your response to the medical dilemma a little troubling too. Half a dose, while superficially "fair", is a death sentence for all, since it has already been determined they need a full dose to live. Praying may mitigate it in terms of your intent, but by your acts you would have refused to save hundreds of people you could have just because you couldn't save them all. If you can pray that half a dose may work, why not pray the weak survive and give half to those most likely to make it? If it's a miracle, get a miracle, but why not play the odds and try for the greatest good? Surely any loving god would see th wisdom in that, and if a miracle suits her purpose at that time, she will grant it even if you gave medicine out to some.
*I am not really a big fan of Nietzsche in general, but I thought I'd throw a little of his argument in there.
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.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
A situation like that, you WANT a cold, calculating bastard in charge.
Well, if you're fit and able and young, yes you probably do. If you're unfit and old, and likely to be triaged to the back of the queue, you definitely don't. You probably want Prob or me.
BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
I like most people, judge some acts to be "evil" but I separate the actions from the person, and I note that evil is on a continuum so that some things are "more wrong" than others and some things are not clear. Finally, I see that my judgments are colored by my perspective, my values and my morals and are a subjective matter. I will defend my values and morals, but they are not universal.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road. Someone who gets to you first may become a dictator and kill thousands, and someone who did not get to you first may have found a cure for cancer if he or she had lived.
The point is, none of us have perfect knowledge. We can only do the best we can in any given situation based on what we know at the time, and act in according with our individual morals and ethics. These morals and ethics are subjective, though they may be debated and groups may come to a general consensus on many points. Not acting is also a choice, and all these choices have subjective basis and effect other people.
From a practical standpoint, you would have to prioritize.
I don't see what's so very practical about it.
Assuming our species has a significant future remaining, then we can never know the consequences of our actions. If Hitler had died as a baby and there'd been no WW2, nuclear bombs would have been built regardless - the technological implications of all that science were unavoidable. And if they'd been built and stockpiled in peacetime, our first taste of them would not have been 2 very small bombs on Japanese cities at the closing end of a war that had already been won. It could just as easily been an all out nuclear war 20 or 30 years later that killed far more people than you'd have saved by killing Hitler. Or 10^500 other possible histories that caused more suffering.
The choosing of what appears to be a lesser evil is still a choice to act for evil. You may save 5 people at the expense of 1, but the Net happiness and relief of suffering is absolutely unquantifiable, since the consequences resound for all eternity. By making that choice, all you are doing is showing that you have, to some degree, an acceptance of evil. Or at least of any evil you can rationalize as "the lesser".
We rationalize that it's better to save more people, but that's really only because the suffering of people there in front of you seems somehow more "real", and their lives seem worth more than those of people who are more remote in time or space. If it's just a bunch of foreigners from somewhere unpronounceable on another continent, or even your own descendants a thousand years hence, we can convince ourselves that they're not as important. They don't suffer the same way we do, and anyway they might not suffer at all. Just because we can't predict how our actions will affect them, doesn't mean it isn't inevitable that they will. Everything we do causes ripples - we can't help that. If you become a Jain and sweep the bugs off the road in front of you while you walk for fear of treading on one, you're still affecting the world. If you live in a cave and never meet anyone, you're still sharing their air, their water. No matter how carefully you tread through life, the consequences of your actions and choices ripples on unstoppably into the future, changing what otherwise would have been.
I used to take a more "practical" view, and endorsed and made such choices - always with the best of intentions, of course. I'd support the notion that a little force now could stop a lot of suffering later in political situations, or that a "little white lie" could be justified to save a person pain. But looking back on it all, I can't see that I achieved anything by believing we were right to bomb Belgrade. Or in covering up a fester-point in a relationship that should have been addressed, not hidden.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is always just a gamble, and the odds are always wholly unknown - unknowable, in fact. Save 1 person, or save a million people? The utilitarian odds for Net happiness or suffering are determined by the lifetime of our species, not by the tiny sample under consideration.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more. That's how dictatorships spring up and brutality thrives - there comes a point where you no longer have the objectivity, or honesty, to discern which is the "lesser" evil, and which is merely the most expedient. And you've convinced or been convinced by the people around you to accept this moral relativity as the norm. It is a very slippery and dangerous slope, and ultimately I believe always weights the odds against you. Play long enough, and you will lose your shirt.
The only thing that is in our individual power to do is to say no to evil. I will not make a choice in a lose-lose situation (unless reckless sentimentality sets in, and it can be a temptation I admit.)
(NB: that's an impersonal and purely hypothetical "you" throughout - I'm not pointing fingers, but it looked stupid with "one")
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road.
No. I admit they are as likely to as not - the odds are entirely unknowable. So all I can do is avoid the evils of witholding the medicine, or making the choice of who lives and dies. Ergo the first 500 hands that are held out to me get a dose, self-selected by agility, strength or ruthlessness in pushing to the front, if that's the way it goes.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more.AMEN!
If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
Not in this case. In this case, full dose or death. Not all meds are the same. :-)
You keep trying to change the facts so that you are not forced into a choice. That's a healthy response, but in this case, you are trying to avoid the moral dilemma instead of confronting it. It's like saying you will choose to die when the gun man will ignore that request and just kill all 5 people, or saying you'd save the kids when the thought experiment says you can't save the kids. Yuo just want another way out. Maybe not bad in real life, but it aovids the whole point of making choices.
Posts 4,347 - 4,358 of 6,170
On prob123's remarks about evil (4345):
I think it's one of those things you know when you see it.
Well, it is true that we all have some understanding of what evil is, although, as shown by Ulrike's latest post, we don't always agree about the details.
The dictionary definitions seem to substitute other words for "evil", but this doesn't give much philosophical insight. It's not that I know those other English words, but haven't yet learned the word "evil". On the contrary, I know enough about the meaning of "evil" to know that only a few of those terms is anywhere near being a synonym for it.
If people were clear about what evil is, then why would so many people end up doing horribly evil things in the name of goodness?
The dictionary definitions seem to substitute other words for "evil", but this doesn't give much philosophical insight. It's not that I know those other English words, but haven't yet learned the word "evil". On the contrary, I know enough about the meaning of "evil" to know that only a few of those terms is anywhere near being a synonym for it.
If people were clear about what evil is, then why would so many people end up doing horribly evil things in the name of goodness?
I find some actions to be evil by my judgment, but I know that is colored by my perspective and value system and such evil exists on a continuum and must be judged in terms of the circumstances. I would still do what I could to fight the "evil" but I would see that it is a label I gave it, and "good" is also based on my point of view. I then have an obligation to evolve a system of ethics and stand by it, so that my actions are in tune with my values.
Nietzsche* once gave an example of a lion and a lamb. To the lamb, the lion is evil. To the lion, the lamb is dinner. If a wild animal eats her own children, is it "evil"?
When human kills her child, I say yes, it is evil. However, that same person came to do that evil based on many conditions, and may also do "good" at other times. I call her monster, but maybe her surviving children call her mommy. I judge the acts, I want her held responsible, but I also want to know what happened that would make a woman do that, and how to heal her family.
Across the board, I'll go out on a limb and say that unless there is an extreme case where others' survival depended on it, killing a 5 year old is "bad". I will go on the record and say I am against killing little kids and if I can stop such killings I will. Those are my moral values, I think they are good for society as a whole, and I vote, through my actions, that we all adapt such morals. I can't vote fro everyone else though. Also it is the action I am against, not "evil people".
I have to say that I find your response to the medical dilemma a little troubling too. Half a dose, while superficially "fair", is a death sentence for all, since it has already been determined they need a full dose to live. Praying may mitigate it in terms of your intent, but by your acts you would have refused to save hundreds of people you could have just because you couldn't save them all. If you can pray that half a dose may work, why not pray the weak survive and give half to those most likely to make it? If it's a miracle, get a miracle, but why not play the odds and try for the greatest good? Surely any loving god would see th wisdom in that, and if a miracle suits her purpose at that time, she will grant it even if you gave medicine out to some.
*I am not really a big fan of Nietzsche in general, but I thought I'd throw a little of his argument in there.
Here's something that would always be evil, no matter what: torturing babies just for the fun of it.
I'd already decided to give it to the first 500 in the queue regardless (assuming it to be dosed unsplittably in some way.)
Well, if you're fit and able and young, yes you probably do. If you're unfit and old, and likely to be triaged to the back of the queue, you definitely don't. You probably want Prob or me.
Gee I don't know why I don't like hypotheticals...
prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. and apathy bordering on negligence. BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
prob123's response to the medical dilemma to be evil. and apathy bordering on negligence. BUT at least you found something evil in this world. See all things are not neutral!
I like most people, judge some acts to be "evil" but I separate the actions from the person, and I note that evil is on a continuum so that some things are "more wrong" than others and some things are not clear. Finally, I see that my judgments are colored by my perspective, my values and my morals and are a subjective matter. I will defend my values and morals, but they are not universal.
But Psimagus, you have imperfect knowledge and you don't know whether your well intended acts will have good or bad consequences down the road. Someone who gets to you first may become a dictator and kill thousands, and someone who did not get to you first may have found a cure for cancer if he or she had lived.
The point is, none of us have perfect knowledge. We can only do the best we can in any given situation based on what we know at the time, and act in according with our individual morals and ethics. These morals and ethics are subjective, though they may be debated and groups may come to a general consensus on many points. Not acting is also a choice, and all these choices have subjective basis and effect other people.
I don't see what's so very practical about it.
Assuming our species has a significant future remaining, then we can never know the consequences of our actions. If Hitler had died as a baby and there'd been no WW2, nuclear bombs would have been built regardless - the technological implications of all that science were unavoidable. And if they'd been built and stockpiled in peacetime, our first taste of them would not have been 2 very small bombs on Japanese cities at the closing end of a war that had already been won. It could just as easily been an all out nuclear war 20 or 30 years later that killed far more people than you'd have saved by killing Hitler. Or 10^500 other possible histories that caused more suffering.
The choosing of what appears to be a lesser evil is still a choice to act for evil. You may save 5 people at the expense of 1, but the Net happiness and relief of suffering is absolutely unquantifiable, since the consequences resound for all eternity. By making that choice, all you are doing is showing that you have, to some degree, an acceptance of evil. Or at least of any evil you can rationalize as "the lesser".
We rationalize that it's better to save more people, but that's really only because the suffering of people there in front of you seems somehow more "real", and their lives seem worth more than those of people who are more remote in time or space. If it's just a bunch of foreigners from somewhere unpronounceable on another continent, or even your own descendants a thousand years hence, we can convince ourselves that they're not as important. They don't suffer the same way we do, and anyway they might not suffer at all. Just because we can't predict how our actions will affect them, doesn't mean it isn't inevitable that they will. Everything we do causes ripples - we can't help that. If you become a Jain and sweep the bugs off the road in front of you while you walk for fear of treading on one, you're still affecting the world. If you live in a cave and never meet anyone, you're still sharing their air, their water. No matter how carefully you tread through life, the consequences of your actions and choices ripples on unstoppably into the future, changing what otherwise would have been.
I used to take a more "practical" view, and endorsed and made such choices - always with the best of intentions, of course. I'd support the notion that a little force now could stop a lot of suffering later in political situations, or that a "little white lie" could be justified to save a person pain. But looking back on it all, I can't see that I achieved anything by believing we were right to bomb Belgrade. Or in covering up a fester-point in a relationship that should have been addressed, not hidden.
Choosing the lesser of two evils is always just a gamble, and the odds are always wholly unknown - unknowable, in fact. Save 1 person, or save a million people? The utilitarian odds for Net happiness or suffering are determined by the lifetime of our species, not by the tiny sample under consideration.
All I do know is that by accepting a lesser evil, you are opening the way to further corruption. In yourself, in those around you. Evil becomes acceptable, just so long as it can be rationalised away as the "lesser" of two or more. That's how dictatorships spring up and brutality thrives - there comes a point where you no longer have the objectivity, or honesty, to discern which is the "lesser" evil, and which is merely the most expedient. And you've convinced or been convinced by the people around you to accept this moral relativity as the norm. It is a very slippery and dangerous slope, and ultimately I believe always weights the odds against you. Play long enough, and you will lose your shirt.
The only thing that is in our individual power to do is to say no to evil. I will not make a choice in a lose-lose situation (unless reckless sentimentality sets in, and it can be a temptation I admit.)
(NB: that's an impersonal and purely hypothetical "you" throughout - I'm not pointing fingers, but it looked stupid with "one")
No. I admit they are as likely to as not - the odds are entirely unknowable. So all I can do is avoid the evils of witholding the medicine, or making the choice of who lives and dies. Ergo the first 500 hands that are held out to me get a dose, self-selected by agility, strength or ruthlessness in pushing to the front, if that's the way it goes.
Hey, One minor point..<-1>NIAID staff began discussing the possibility of conducting a trial to determine immune responses to half-dose flu vaccine in healthy young adults. The idea came from small studies published in the late 1970s suggesting that lower-than-full-dose influenza vaccines might provide adequate immunity against influenza virus infection.
<0> If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
<0> If you look at most medicines a half dose can be quite effective.
Not in this case. In this case, full dose or death. Not all meds are the same. :-)
You keep trying to change the facts so that you are not forced into a choice. That's a healthy response, but in this case, you are trying to avoid the moral dilemma instead of confronting it. It's like saying you will choose to die when the gun man will ignore that request and just kill all 5 people, or saying you'd save the kids when the thought experiment says you can't save the kids. Yuo just want another way out. Maybe not bad in real life, but it aovids the whole point of making choices.
» More new posts: Doghead's Cosmic Bar