When I studied the law, we had to "solve" similar cases (punishable or not?)
Examples of scenarios used in the experiment:
Impersonal Moral Scenario: Standard Trolley
You are at the wheel of a runaway trolley quickly approaching a fork in the tracks. On the tracks extending to the left is a group of five railway workmen. On the tracks extending to the right is a single railway workman.
If you do nothing the trolley will proceed to the left, causing the deaths of the five workmen. The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch on your dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of the single workman.
Would you hit the switch in order to avoid the deaths of the five workmen?
hit the switch = punishable
Personal Moral Scenario: Submarine
You are the captain of a military submarine travelling underneath a large iceberg. An onboard explosion has caused you to lose most of your oxygen supply and has injured one of your crew who is quickly losing blood. The injured crew member is going to die from his wounds no matter what happens.
The remaining oxygen is not sufficient for the entire crew to make it to the surface. The only way to save the other crew members is to shoot dead the injured crew member so that there will be just enough oxygen for the rest of the crew to survive.
Would you kill the fatally injured crew member in order to save the lives of the remaining crew members?
kill the crew member = punishable
Personal Moral Scenario: Infection
Someone you know has AIDS and plans to infect others, some of whom will die. Your only options are to let it happen or to kill the person.
Do you pull the trigger?
pull the trigger = punishable
Conclusion: You can learn the difference without using emotions. … But I've no idea which decision I would take without my knowledge ot the law.
It IS possible to be moral and break the law of men. At times, it is REQUIRED to break the law of men in order to be moral. In Nazi-occupied France, it was ILLEGAL to conceal Jews from the authorities. If Jews came to you wanting to be hidden, you legally had to turn them in. In order to be moral, you HAD TO BREAK THE LAW.
The example is not quite to the point. How about this one: After you've hidden the above mentioned Jew, a policeman wants to search your place in order to arrest him. Kill the policeman? The answer would be YES, because in this case (occupied France) he represents "unlawful law".
Please prove, citing evidence OUTSIDE OF the law that the law is the ultimate arbiter of what is and is not moral, that law can NEVER ERR in moral terms.
There's no proof. But you can't run a society on the basis of moral terms because they are not universal. The law – at least in theory – has been agreed upon.
... killing is last ditch in that situation.
You are right, I was not clear enough about that: The answer is YES – ONLY IF there is no other way to prevent the policeman from killing the hidden jew.
All the examples by EnglishLulu were about having only two choices: kill the one person or kill the other person(s).
The finding that some moral judgments involve emotions while others do not supports the supposedly diametrically opposed thinking of philosophers Immanuel Kant and David Hume.
… This provides strong biological evidence that emotions enable us to respect individual dignity, says Kitcher.
"Emotions are an anchor for our moral systems. If you remove that anchor you can end up anywhere," says de Waal.
Kant said something like "you should always act so that the rule behind your action could be used as universal law". Now that seems to be a hidden condition inside all of the questions.
For example:
Impersonal Moral Scenario: Standard Trolley
… The only way to avoid the deaths of these workmen is to hit a switch on your dashboard that will cause the trolley to proceed to the right, causing the death of the single workman.
Would you hit the switch in order to avoid the deaths of the five workmen?
Now the real question is: Which universal law should be applied to the case and all similar cases even if no one can tell afterwards if the condition "The only way to avoid …" is correct in all the cases – someone might err when telling you about the facts or might even try to cheat?
I think that answers like "hit the switch" could get you in trouble when such questions are asked e.g. in your divorce case (if applicable) or in case someone wants to put you into a psy. ward.
It could be some "weeding out the aspies" thing, see this thread, only with psychology instead of genetics.
This is a very interesting study, but I fully agree with what has been said in a few replies already: This does not strike me as a test of emotional versus utilitarian morality, but rather an issue of moral courage. The "emotional" choice involves chickening out and allowing harm to come to many people by your refusal to act. The "utilitarian" choice involves being willing to take personal emotional or legal consequences for acting to save many over the few.
The majority of people could not bring themselves to be responsible for the death of one person to save two or even a million. I find it ridiculous that this way of thinking is likened to a defect of the brain (ignoring for a moment that the subjects in the study did have brain damage). Governments make these decisions DAILY. Soldiers are sent to war where expected casualties may be known to be extremely high, often to protect millions of civilians. Other civilians are often killed in those wars, but this is considered an unavoidable consequence of serving the greater good. Mandatory vaccines DO cause adverse or even fatal reactions in a percentage of recipients, yet protect millions from disease. Of course, that's all generally received by society as acceptable, but to think that way as an individual would be indicative of mental/processing/emotional deficiency? Stupid.
Unfortunately, Herr Hitler did follow the letter of the law when it came to him seizing power--he exploited critical weaknesses in the German constitution.
So where was the presidential election after Hindenburg's death?
"Unlawful law" is nothing but weasel words.
Ouch. This term was invented to show that not every "positive" law is legal just by being there. The idea is that laws have to respect the "human rights".
The law has not been agreed upon. If the law were agreed upon, there would be no amendment to laws and no laws would ever be overturned by any court.
The proceedures to amend laws and to overturn them in court are agreed upon as well. Have a look at Hobbes, Leviathan
.
The majority of people could not bring themselves to be responsible for the death of one person to save two or even a million. … Governments make these decisions DAILY.
Governments are elected by the majority of people for this purpose. Consequently, they are responsible. But perhaps they don't feel (whatever that my be) it.
Ouch. This term was invented to show that not every "positive" law is legal just by being there. The idea is that laws have to respect the "human rights".
[quote]
No, they don't. If it becomes law that human rights don't have to be respected, then it is not unlawful to not respect them, so long as the law is obeyed in no respecting them.
There is nothing, NOTHING at all inherently moral in law. I didn't study under Peter Suber for four years for nothing.
[quote]
The proceedures to amend laws and to overturn them in court are agreed upon as well.
Therefore, EVEN THE LAW ADMITS THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
Please prove that "law" == "moral" and that "illegal" == "immoral.
Mmm... But just because people say "yes" in such a HYPOTHETICAL situation, it does not make them morally void or psychopaths. The other question is, how many of those who answered "yes" in these hypothetical situations would ACTUALLY do so if presented with these circumstances for real? Personally I reckon that if killing one guilty man would definitely save many in the future, then yeah. Let's get him. But how can you tell?
I say that the ones who answer "no" are morally void. They PREFER their mere personal comfort over the greater good! They who would say "no" are the psychopaths. They put their own happiness before the greater good. What could be more selfish, immoral, and psychopathic than that?
No, they don't. If it becomes law that human rights don't have to be respected, then it is not unlawful to not respect them, so long as the law is obeyed in no respecting them.
That was just the idea of the Nuremberg Trials. Please feel free to disagree.
Therefore, EVEN THE LAW ADMITS THAT IT IS NOT SUBJECT TO COMPLETE AGREEMENT.
Please prove that "law" == "moral" and that "illegal" == "immoral.
This proof cannot exist:
• moral is derived from latin "mos" and means "established practices of a society" – what the majority of the population DOES.
• legal is derived from latin "lex" and means "written rules of a society" – what the majority (or a minority of rulers in a oligarchy) wants to be done.
Obviously these two differ from time to time, especially in a NT world.
@DogBrain: Would you please use the [ /quote ] tags?
One more thing: I didn't want to start an argument "moral vs. legal", I just found the coincidence amusing: that the same cases are used in the above mentioned test as in the law courses at the university.
As I wrote in my first post:
But I've no idea which decision I would take without my knowledge of the law.
I still have none.
Obviously these two differ from time to time, especially in a NT world.
Your contention has always been that legal == moral, or at least that is how you have been presenting the question.
As I wrote in my first post: But I've no idea which decision I would take without my knowledge of the law.
Thus, you use "knowledge of the law" as the ultimate guide to moral questions, which requires presuming legal == moral.
Thus, you use "knowledge of the law" as the ultimate guide to moral questions, which requires presuming legal == moral.
No: my knowledge of the law sort of blocks any attempts to get to my "moral feelings" (however you might call them) – at least in the cases presented here by EnglishLulu. I cannot compare them and thus cannot say if one of these is "better".
The fact that I see something doesn't mean it's "ultimate", only that it is visible.
If I was forced to visualize the legal and the moral implications at the same time, I'd get overloaded on the spot :|.
I meant to add that the sample size was too small to draw any reliable conclusions from the study. It would be interesting to see further studies done on larger samples of people.
exactly as spock said,the needs of the many outwiegh the needs of the few.
i would take the path that would lead to the lowest body count,and damn the torpedos.
When I studied the law, we had to "solve" similar cases (punishable or not?)
hit the switch = punishable
kill the crew member = punishable
pull the trigger = punishable
All of those depend on the jurisdiction, some would find you guilty but possibly not punish (indeed may record no conviction).
In Australia, where chosing not to take an action is generally considered (legally) acting, the trolley example you would be more likely to face more severe punishment if you chose not to flip the switch (killing 5 as opposed to 1).
...Alex.
When I studied the law, we had to "solve" similar cases (punishable or not?)
hit the switch = punishable
kill the crew member = punishable
pull the trigger = punishable
All of those depend on the jurisdiction, some would find you guilty but possibly not punish (indeed may record no conviction).
Ok, that's correct. I have studied the law in Germany, and there you have to ask first if the action is punishable in principle, and then in a second step if the person is justified (self-defence …) or not guilty (too young, asleep, erring, mentally ill or in an unsolvable conflict of duties).
In Australia, where chosing not to take an action is generally considered (legally) acting, the trolley example you would be more likely to face more severe punishment if you chose not to flip the switch (killing 5 as opposed to 1).
In Germany, chosing not to take an action is considered acting only if the person in question has to guarantee the victim's well-being e.g. by being a parent or be having brought him/her into the dangerous situation.