Is this ethical? | Page 2 | TigerDroppings.com

Posted byMessage
laze
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2012
23 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

I just don't know about that. You would kill 100 innocent people to save a city from a bomber? I'm not saying thats ridiculous, but that's some deep crap


One, it was a ridiculous situation to meant to get my point across. Two, I'm sure you're being sarcastic, but I can't tell how? Are you making fun of me for trying to be deep? If so






Back to top
ChewyDante
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Jan 2007
9174 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

Now, was it reasonable? Like above, if there was no other way for them to get out, and both would die if one wasn't sacrificed, then yes, I believe it was reasonable, if unethical.


Of course it is rational, but that is not very arguable or relevant to the question of ethics.

quote:

I base this on the fact that by doing this, you got rid of a middle aged over-weight guy and in return got a boy in a time where it would be very hard to raise a child, and the hardest parts of it were already over.


This sounds like some kind of half-hearted attempt at rationalizing how it is, in fact, ethical. How does the man's "middle age" or "weight" have anything to do with it? If the victim of the killing was 10 years old himself or of a completely healthy weight, it remains as rational to kill him for the purpose of delaying the threat and allowing the escape of the other two persons involved. You seem to be implying that the life of the wounded boy is more valuable and thus justifies the murder of the "middle aged over-weight guy." Otherwise, there is no relevance in highlighting these features.






Back to top
MrTide33
Alabama Fan
Southeastern Central North America
Member since Nov 2012
3155 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

Are you making fun of me for trying to be deep?


Not at all. Being deep is a good thing
I just have a hard time coming to terms with killing innocent life as ever being a viable option






Back to top
laze
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2012
23 posts

re: Is this ethical?


The problem with these kinds of topics is that we have to explain every minute detail because if you don't people will question you over it. It can get time consuming and tedious very quickly. Not that they shouldn't, they should, because let me be probably not the first to tell you that people are really, really dumb. There's no guarantee you know what someone is thinking even if you know them, let alone if they are a stranger. Having said that:

quote:

This sounds like some kind of half-hearted attempt at rationalizing how it is, in fact, ethical


I remember, if not specifically, stating it was completely unethical under any circumstances to take an innocent human life for another innocent human life. You go into if's, and's, or but's, but like I said above, it is nearly impossible to go into every single detail. I said under those circumstances, it was reasonable.

If the victim was 8 years old and had cancer, BUT it might be curable, and if the guy hurt back at the farm was overweight BUT etc etc. You could make an ENDLESS number of arguments for all cases. That's why I separated it into three categories. Hell, that's not all the categories you could separate it into, I almost guarantee. I can't think of any others at the moment, but I hope you get my point(s).






Back to top
laze
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2012
23 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

I just have a hard time coming to terms with killing innocent life as ever being a viable option


I understand where you're coming from. However, I'm sure there are situations where it would be reasonable, if not the best option, to take an innocents life. Hopefully I'm never the innocent being sacrificed, but if I am, they better be damn sure they're doing the only thing they can, because if not, I'm going to be pissed.






Back to top
MrTide33
Alabama Fan
Southeastern Central North America
Member since Nov 2012
3155 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

Hopefully I'm never the innocent being sacrificed, but if I am, they better be damn sure they're doing the only thing they can, because if not, I'm going to be pissed.


The good news is, this whole topic is actually irrelevant because abortion is never necessary to save a life






Back to top
ChewyDante
New Orleans Saints Fan
Member since Jan 2007
9174 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

I remember, if not specifically, stating it was completely unethical under any circumstances to take an innocent human life for another innocent human life.


Perhaps you tried to convey this message, but then you raised a scenario where you would execute X number of innocent persons to save Y number of other innocent persons. Your position is a tad confusing because it is contradictory. You purport here now that such an act is always unethical, "under any circumstnaces," but that you would do it. Thus, apparently ethics do not dictate your decision making. Granted you presented a far more extreme case, but in that case, I believe it could be argued that sacrificing a small number to save an infinitely larger number of persons could be ethical. How can you engage in such an act unless you have rationalized it's ethical nature? Otherwise it is to assumed that ethics and morality are not always given preeminence in your decision making.

One could make the case in the OP's scenario that they believe it ethical to exchange the value of one life for another life for any particular number of reasons, but that hasn't been articulated, but only that it is "reasonable". The question is, is it justifiable? Moral? You explicitly said you believed it to be unethical, but then mentioned characteristics of the man to be killed which can only be viewed as relevant if you were making some ethical rationalization. My point is that your sentiments are contradictory and quite confusing because you have made them such.

quote:

You go into if's, and's, or but's, but like I said above, it is nearly impossible to go into every single detail. I said under those circumstances, it was reasonable.



I may have used the words "if", "and", or "but", but not in the fashion you seem to imply. I didn't alter the scenario in any way except to point out that the man's physical characteristics are irrelevant to whether or not killing one for expediency is rational. I simply don't understand what point you were trying to make by highlighting these features and you have still not clarified that. I can only imagine they would be used to rationalize why his liquidation could be morally justified but then you say that it is never morally justified. Again, confusing because it would be contradictory. Which is why I offered an inquiry into what relevance they have in this scenario.

And I understand that you said such a killing was reasonable. I agreed that it is absolutely such. But again, the question wasn't whether it was reasonable, it was whether it was ethical. Ethics and rational decision making are of course not mutually inclusive. It's reasonable if you wish to survive yourself and save the boy, but no one is questioning that.

quote:

If the victim was 8 years old and had cancer, BUT it might be curable, and if the guy hurt back at the farm was overweight BUT etc etc. You could make an ENDLESS number of arguments for all cases.


This is superflous. I didn't add any extenuating circumstances to alter the scenario, so this is not addressing any critique or inquiry I've made. We are talking about the circumstances at hand and whether they are ethical. You mentioned age and weight factoring into whether the killing was reasonable, I highlighted why the age and weight were irrelevant to that by showing a 10 year old in good health would be equally as rational to kill in order to preserve the other two persons. The only relevance it can have is if you derive a value judgment based off of it. Which would indicate an ethical rationalization.

quote:

but I hope you get my point(s).




Your point is off subject to the matters I addressed. I am not the one coming up with the "ifs, ands, or buts" here.






Back to top
McChowder
LSU Fan
Hammond
Member since Dec 2006
2856 posts

re: Is this ethical?


I say let the little bastard die. You cannot replace the knowledge and skill of a healthy adult male short term. In an apocalyptic scenario, make the choice that better increases the groups chance of survival. Drag the little kid along for the ride, toss him out there to get eaten, and you have medicine on standby for the healthy adults and other children.





Back to top
  Replies (0)
Scruffy
USA Fan
Member since Jul 2011
32688 posts
 Online 

re: Is this ethical?


In the universe of this TV show, ethics are irrelevant. Survival is of the utmost importance. That isn't to say that I would or wouldn't do what Shane did, but I am not in that particular situation myself.

If I am to think from the perspective of those surviving in a zombie apocalypse, I see nothing wrong with what that Shane did. One life was sacrificed to save two.



This post was edited on 11/15 at 2:28 am


Back to top
BR Tiger
LSU Fan
Baton Rouge
Member since Mar 2004
1948 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

In the universe of this TV show, ethics are irrelevant.


I must be watching a different show than you. When I watch I am always struck by the ethical choices that the characters are facing. I see it as integral to the show. This isn't just a show about staying alive and killing undead freaks. At its core it is ultimately about the questions of what makes us human and the choices we have to make because of that. The ZA is the vehicle for those ideas.

ETA- I tend to agree that there was no right decision for Shane to make. He did what he thought was best. He chose the lesser of 2 evils.



This post was edited on 11/15 at 7:14 am


Back to top
  Replies (0)
laze
USA Fan
Member since Oct 2012
23 posts

re: Is this ethical?


quote:

ChewyDante


Apparently you can't understand the differences between ethical and reasonable. I made excuses for why it would be reasonable, not ethical, which I thought I made clear. I'm sure you're just misunderstanding me.

quote:

How can you engage in such an act unless you have rationalized it's ethical nature?


I can go kill someone right now, even though I know it would be wrong. So I could do what you said I couldn't.

quote:

The question is, is it justifiable? Moral?


One, there you go, doing exactly what I said not to do. Creating new terms and trying to justify them. I stuck to 3 that came to my head first because it would take an entire day to talk about every single case.

quote:

You explicitly said you believed it to be unethical, but then mentioned characteristics of the man to be killed which can only be viewed as relevant if you were making some ethical rationalization.


You can make a logical decision based on characteristics without taking morality into account. I said in the post-apocalyptic world they are in, it is better for a boy to survive than an overweight man. That's based off of the little I saw. Sure, it's possible the overweight man knows things that would make him more useful, but we can't know that.

quote:

I didn't alter the scenario in any way except to point out that the man's physical characteristics are irrelevant to whether or not killing one for expediency is rational.


"If the victim of the killing was 10 years old himself or of a completely healthy weight, it remains as rational to kill him for the purpose of delaying the threat and allowing the escape of the other two persons involved." - ChewyDante

More on this topic, I know killing the guy because he is fat is weaksauce, however, it would be more rational to let a guy and a boy live than to let both men die and have the boy maybe but almost definitely not live. Once again, morality has nothing to do with this, as you can see above.

quote:

But again, the question wasn't whether it was reasonable, it was whether it was ethical. Ethics and rational decision making are of course not mutually inclusive.


I understand this, and I think this is where we aren't understanding each other. I wasn't trying to connect being rational, reasonable, or necessary to it being ethical. I said at the very beginning that it was in no way ethical to do what he did.

quote:

I didn't add any extenuating circumstances to alter the scenario, so this is not addressing any critique or inquiry I've made.


See above

quote:

We are talking about the circumstances at hand and whether they are ethical.


Under the circumstances, it was not ethical. I crated new categories to judge them by after i said this.

quote:

I highlighted why the age and weight were irrelevant to that by showing a 10 year old in good health would be equally as rational to kill in order to preserve the other two persons.


I disagree on who you should kill. If the 10 year old and Otis are running, then killing Otis is rational. If the 10 year old and Shane are running, then you could make a case about both having their perks. Also, all of this is completely speculative, which is why I shouldn't even have said it at all because for all we know Otis could be the most useful of the group.












Back to top
  Replies (0)


Back to top