|
Post by phludowin on Feb 23, 2021 7:20:53 GMT
The clearly academic, uncomplicated nature of the unattended baby on a railroad track is intended force an examination of the absolutist view that was expressed: "You are only responsible for what you do; not for what you don't do." In my opinion, it was being constantly dodged, so I stopped pursuing it. Not sure if you are talking about me, because I thought I said that the person doing nothing is not morally responsible for the baby on the railroad. How is that dodging? If you were not talking about me, I apologize.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2021 9:22:48 GMT
OK let's look at a new scenario, let's say a political leader is selling weapons to another country and they in turn are using them to massacre civilians, and he's very much aware of what they are doing, should that political leader be tried for war crimes? In my opinion, yes. In reality, the massacring of such citizens generally benefits the arms-selling leader beyond the money from selling weapons (eg the US and UK have sold weapons to Saudi Arabia to employ against Yemeni people in order to quash resistance to the neoliberal reforms the US wants implemented in the area). However, even if that were not the case and it was simply a financial transaction, it's still contemptible.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2021 9:42:16 GMT
OK let's look at a new scenario, let's say a political leader is selling weapons to another country and they in turn are using them to massacre civilians, and he's very much aware of what they are doing, should that political leader be tried for war crimes? Is that comparable to a political leader directly ordering for the massacre of civilians? I think I see where this might be going, but I'll stay mum on that... In this scenario, yes, enabling the massacre of civilians is comparable to a direct order for the massacre of civilians. Though, if the leader stopped selling the weapons, theoretically weapons could be acquired elsewhere and the massacre could continue. That's actually the argument Theresa May's government made when questioned about the UK supplying arms to Saudi Arabia - "if we don't sell them, someone else will and it may as well be the UK that makes a profit out of it rather than some other nation" (paraphrasing here of course). But think of that logic applied elsewhere - you see a frail old woman walking through a dangerous neighbourhood. Would you mug her on the grounds that if you don't, someone else will anyway and it may as well be you who profits from it rather than some other person?
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2021 9:48:17 GMT
Yes, I'll blame the person who dumped the baby there. But blame is not indivisible. Sometimes portions of blame can be spread. I don't understand why you don't look poorly on that person who could have easily done something, but chose to do nothing. It is still a choice that he made. Why does one choice (the "do nothing" choice) get to be free of any moral judgment when that choice also has a consequence, just as a choice to do something has a consequence? Because the choice to do nothing did not set the event in motion where a baby ends up on the track. The person who did nothing did not put anyone in danger. So yes, no moral judgement for innocent bystanders (unless they actively prevent professionals from solving the situation, but that's another story). Fair enough but do you think if the person does save the baby they are morally commendable, even if they had no obligation to act?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 14:56:22 GMT
I think I see where this might be going, but I'll stay mum on that... In this scenario, yes, enabling the massacre of civilians is comparable to a direct order for the massacre of civilians. Though, if the leader stopped selling the weapons, theoretically weapons could be acquired elsewhere and the massacre could continue. That's actually the argument Theresa May's government made when questioned about the UK supplying arms to Saudi Arabia - "if we don't sell them, someone else will and it may as well be the UK that makes a profit out of it rather than some other nation" (paraphrasing here of course). But think of that logic applied elsewhere - you see a frail old woman walking through a dangerous neighbourhood. Would you mug her on the grounds that if you don't, someone else will anyway and it may as well be you who profits from it rather than some other person? To me, that doesn't seem like an equal comparison to the weapons sale scenario. The other scenario is far more complex. Would I mug her? That would be interesting to watch as I am an elderly woman (67) myself. We might end up arm-wrestling, laughing and getting something to eat together. I know more than a few elderly ladies that could take me out in a heartbeat, lol. One carries concealed. Others have personal defense training. Never underestimate a 'little old lady'.
|
|
The Lost One
Junior Member
@lostkiera
Posts: 2,655
Likes: 1,275
|
Post by The Lost One on Feb 23, 2021 15:11:41 GMT
That's actually the argument Theresa May's government made when questioned about the UK supplying arms to Saudi Arabia - "if we don't sell them, someone else will and it may as well be the UK that makes a profit out of it rather than some other nation" (paraphrasing here of course). But think of that logic applied elsewhere - you see a frail old woman walking through a dangerous neighbourhood. Would you mug her on the grounds that if you don't, someone else will anyway and it may as well be you who profits from it rather than some other person?To me, that doesn't seem like an equal comparison to the weapons sale scenario. What do you think is the key difference?
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 15:27:45 GMT
To me, that doesn't seem like an equal comparison to the weapons sale scenario. What do you think is the key difference? Hmmm, I haven't had my morning dose of Coca-Cola yet; I'll have to think about that and get back to you. ___________________________________________________________________ Edit: Sugar and caffeine crisis averted. First? I would not do either thing, mug the old lady or directly order death, so it's kind of hard to relate to. Second, the severity of the consequences is too different. Third, my personal bias affects this because I would be inclined to alert the old lady, or ask her if she needs help, or call someone - perhaps her relative - to come and pick her up in a car. As always, dependent on the evolving circumstances. Or call 911 to help assess the situation and/or intervene. I can't even begin to think about what I would do in the weapons sale scenario, or would think is the lesser or greater evil. I think it's really difficult to come up with accurate comparisons; this sort of mental exercise is not my strong suit, and I would always have to allow for context. It's probably a good thing that I have never been chosen for jury duty.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 16:28:56 GMT
Yes, I'll blame the person who dumped the baby there. But blame is not indivisible. Sometimes portions of blame can be spread. I don't understand why you don't look poorly on that person who could have easily done something, but chose to do nothing. It is still a choice that he made. Why does one choice (the "do nothing" choice) get to be free of any moral judgment when that choice also has a consequence, just as a choice to do something has a consequence? Because the choice to do nothing did not set the event in motion where a baby ends up on the track. The person who did nothing did not put anyone in danger. So yes, no moral judgement for innocent bystanders (unless they actively prevent professionals from solving the situation, but that's another story). Whether a choice set the event in motion is not the total picture. The person who did nothing still made a choice that will have a foreseeable consequence - the same consequence as the choice made by the person who placed the baby there. And since the person who did nothing also made a choice, that person is not exempted from a moral judgment. This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook. As the principle cause, they get the largest share of blame. But that doesn't leave the person who chose to do nothing as totally blameless. Edit: Typo corrected
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 16:44:10 GMT
Because the choice to do nothing did not set the event in motion where a baby ends up on the track. The person who did nothing did not put anyone in danger. So yes, no moral judgement for innocent bystanders (unless they actively prevent professionals from solving the situation, but that's another story). The person who did nothing still made a choice that will have a foreseeable consequence - the same consequence as the choice made by the person who placed the baby there. And since the person who did nothing also made a choice, that person is not exempted from a moral judgment. This does let the person who dumped the baby off the hook. As the principle cause, they get the largest share of blame. But that doesn't leave the person who chose to do nothing as totally blameless. A foreseeable consequence... what if the railroad tracks were shut down for repair that day and the guardian knows there will be workers there soon? One still wonders why anyone would leave a baby on tracks rather than on the side of the road or in a grassy patch. Perhaps the guardian has stepped out of sight to try to get help, or find water, or get a signal on a cell phone? For me, still too many variables.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 17:07:29 GMT
The person who did nothing still made a choice that will have a foreseeable consequence - the same consequence as the choice made by the person who placed the baby there. And since the person who did nothing also made a choice, that person is not exempted from a moral judgment. This does let the person who dumped the baby off the hook. As the principle cause, they get the largest share of blame. But that doesn't leave the person who chose to do nothing as totally blameless. A foreseeable consequence... what if the railroad tracks were shut down for repair that day and the guardian knows there will be workers there soon? One still wonders why anyone would leave a baby on tracks rather than on the side of the road or in a grassy patch. Perhaps the guardian has stepped out of sight to try to get help, or find water, or get a signal on a cell phone? For me, still too many variables. Sorry, but I dispensed with "easy way out" answers earlier in the thread when I said, "The person sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track?."Most would find this an easy question, and would have some moral criticism for that person.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 17:30:52 GMT
A foreseeable consequence... what if the railroad tracks were shut down for repair that day and the guardian knows there will be workers there soon? One still wonders why anyone would leave a baby on tracks rather than on the side of the road or in a grassy patch. Perhaps the guardian has stepped out of sight to try to get help, or find water, or get a signal on a cell phone? For me, still too many variables. Sorry, but I dispensed with "easy way out" answers earlier in the thread when I said, "The person sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track?."Most would find this an easy question, and would have some moral criticism for that person. Sorry, I had forgotten the original post's details. Given that, I personally wouldn't be able to do nothing, but that's just me. If I saw a deer with its hoof caught in the track, I would be trying to free the deer. BTW, I live close to a railroad track. I've rescued a blue heron that was injured, and got it to my vet. It is living in a sanctuary park, now. The vet mused, "what are the chances that it would be you that saw this incident, and responded"?. I'm sort of known for rescuing critters. I have moral criticism for the people who torture animals before killing them to eat (that happens in Asia). My Dad had moral criticism for people who eat veal - he handmade a sign for his car that read "Don't eat veal, it's tortured infant flesh", with the photo of a baby calf. I just don't do well with these narrowly defined absolutes. I can only define what I would do, not judge what another would, or would not, do.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 23, 2021 17:48:20 GMT
Because the choice to do nothing did not set the event in motion where a baby ends up on the track. The person who did nothing did not put anyone in danger. So yes, no moral judgement for innocent bystanders (unless they actively prevent professionals from solving the situation, but that's another story). Whether a choice set the event in motion is not the total picture. The person who did nothing still made a choice that will have a foreseeable consequence - the same consequence as the choice made by the person who placed the baby there. And since the person who did nothing also made a choice, that person is not exempted from a moral judgment. This does let the person who dumped the baby off the hook. As the principle cause, they get the largest share of blame. But that doesn't leave the person who chose to do nothing as totally blameless. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And in my opinion, the person who dumped the baby is NOT off the hook.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 17:53:40 GMT
Whether a choice set the event in motion is not the total picture. The person who did nothing still made a choice that will have a foreseeable consequence - the same consequence as the choice made by the person who placed the baby there. And since the person who did nothing also made a choice, that person is not exempted from a moral judgment. This does let the person who dumped the baby off the hook. As the principle cause, they get the largest share of blame. But that doesn't leave the person who chose to do nothing as totally blameless. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And in my opinion, the person who dumped the baby is NOT off the hook. Hold up. That was a bad typo on my part. That sentence should have read, "This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook." I hope the sentence that followed would suggest that's what I meant.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 18:12:56 GMT
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And in my opinion, the person who dumped the baby is NOT off the hook. Hold up. That was a bad typo on my part. That sentence should have read, "This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook." I hope the sentence that followed would suggest that's what I meant. Good for you, seeing the typo and fixing it! And calling attention to it. And, for no particular reason, this thread made me think of this quotation: It sort of relates...
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Feb 23, 2021 18:21:30 GMT
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. And in my opinion, the person who dumped the baby is NOT off the hook. Hold up. That was a bad typo on my part. That sentence should have read, "This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook." I hope the sentence that followed would suggest that's what I meant. Yes, I thought so. I could have made the choice not to say anything and let this typo pass; but I didn't. I thought that maybe there are people who feel moral opprobrium towards people who notice something bad but choose not to do anything about it.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 18:33:36 GMT
Hold up. That was a bad typo on my part. That sentence should have read, "This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook." I hope the sentence that followed would suggest that's what I meant. Yes, I thought so. I could have made the choice not to say anything and let this typo pass; but I didn't. I thought that maybe there are people who feel moral opprobrium towards people who notice something bad but choose not to do anything about it. I definitely would have thought you a fiend for not mentioning it. And I definitely think you are making the mistake of connecting morality only with action and never with the lack of action. The standard moral debate centers on the question of intention vs. consequence. And intention/consequence is present both in acting or not acting.
|
|
|
Post by Isapop on Feb 23, 2021 18:47:23 GMT
Hold up. That was a bad typo on my part. That sentence should have read, "This doesn't let the person who dumped the baby off the hook." I hope the sentence that followed would suggest that's what I meant. Good for you, seeing the typo and fixing it! And calling attention to it. And, for no particular reason, this thread made me think of this quotation: It sort of relates... It does sort of relate, in the way it implicates the "nothing doer" in the evil action. Da Vinci could be overstating it with "commands". I might say "gives permission" instead. But Da Vinci was an artist, so let's expect a little flair. But the absolutism of "Never hold someone responsible for what he doesn't do" means we don't look negatively at someone's utter lack of compassion.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on Feb 23, 2021 18:56:54 GMT
Good for you, seeing the typo and fixing it! And calling attention to it. And, for no particular reason, this thread made me think of this quotation: It sort of relates... It does sort of relate, in the way it implicates the "nothing doer" in the evil action. Da Vinci could be overstating it with "commands". I might say "gives permission" instead. But Da Vinci was an artist, so let's expect a little flair. But the absolutism of "Never hold someone responsible for what he doesn't do" means we don't look negatively at someone's utter lack of compassion. Hmmm... never say 'never'? Now I must get to the task of feeding critters who are holding me morally responsible for not putting enough kibble in the bowls this morning! They are a tough crowd...
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 1, 2021 21:27:26 GMT
Sorry, but that's the easy way out. The person (not you or me) sees the train approaching. No time to call for any other help. So in that situation, you'd express no moral opprobrium for the person who abstains from removing the baby from the train track? (Remember, even calling the police is still doing something, not nothing. We're talking about bearing responsibility when you do nothing.) If the person sees the train approaching, then it's too late anyway. The only thing they'd achieve by jumping on the tracks and trying to save the baby is that the police has to remove two corpses from the track instead of one. So IMO not doing anything is the right course of action in that case. WTF. Phludowin, it sounds to me like had you been living during nazi Germany you’d have been one of Hitler’s top generals.
|
|
|
Post by Cody™ on Mar 1, 2021 21:35:18 GMT
Which is exactly why I personally would not automatically rush to help. I would ask myself: Why is a baby alone on the railway? Did the guardians put it there on purpose? Is it part of a sociological experiment, possibly set up by a psychopath? That's one thing that annoys me with many movies where a psychopathic killer sets up a game, where the victims have to play in order to get out. Like in the Saw movies. Why do the victims play the game? How can they believe that the psychopath will keep his word? At least in "the Dark Knight", the victims refused to play. And they all survived. So the best course of action would be to call the police and ask for instructions. Unless you know the whole picture. Then you can decide for yourself what to do. Well explained! Also one of the dumbest posts I’ve read in a long time.
|
|